Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Protection of Animals (Penalties) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is but a few months since the first case of dog fighting became public news and the conviction of 11 people was obtained following an abhorrent, disgusting, disgraceful and barbaric case of dog fighting at Enfield. In that case, the police and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals discovered a dog fight in progress between a Staffordshire bull terrier and an English bull terrier, with other dogs waiting to be put up for fights. There were crowds aiding and abetting and it is believed that there had been heavy betting.
Although that fight was stopped well before it finished, one of the dogs was found to have many tooth lacerations and teeth hanging from its jaw. It was necessary to put the dog down to save it from appalling suffering. I believe, and it widely believed, that if it had not been for the merciful intervention of the RSPCA and the police, those dogs would have been pushed and pressurised to fight to the death of one of them. That is the situation with which my Bill seeks to deal.
In its broadened form, the Bill will deal not only with penalties for those who are convicted of promoting dog fights, but with those who are convicted of promoting cock fighting. Recently, there was a case of cock fighting at a remote farm. Other cases of dog fights promoted by individuals are coming before the courts, but it is believed that the cases which have been before the courts and which are due to be brought are but the tip of the iceberg of this wicked practice. Therefore, it is essential to hit those who are convicted of promoting this so-called sport — when they can be found — as hard as possible as a means of stamping it out altogether.
Since there has been no other debate on the Bill in the House, I shall say a few words about what the Bill seeks to achieve and why I brought it before the House. The Great Britain of 1911 was different from the country in which we live today. In many respects we now live in a more violent society, but attitudes have changed and many matters which were accepted in 1911—when there were other substantial forms of animal protection—we do not tolerate today. One of them is cruelty to animals on today's scale.
Why is it that we still use laws on animal cruelty that were passed 76 years ago? That was a time when suffragettes were chaining themselves to Downing street railings. How can a law which was enacted in 1911 be adequate for the 1980s? The truth is that it cannot. Reforms of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 are required, and my Bill seeks to bring them into existence.
First, there is the need for a search warrant facility. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 allows for search warrants to be issued where an offence is suspected, but there is no corresponding provision in the 1911 Act. It is incredible that the warrant facility is available if there is a suspicion that wild birds are being taken or are being kept illegally, but where there is a suspicion that domestic animals are being left to suffer nothing can be done without the co-operation of the offending owners.
The disqualification or banning from keeping animals after first conviction is worth a thought, if I may be allowed it. While there is provision in the present legislation for the courts to disqualify someone from keeping a dog after a first conviction, the same is not true of any other animal. For instance, in one case a young foal was fitted with a halter that was too tight. The foal was judged to have suffered for at least a month from the resulting wounds. These were 1 in deep, maggot-infested and, according to a vet, could be smelt from a distance of 8 m. The vet was amazed that the foal had been able to eat or drink at all. Although the owner was found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering, he got off with a conditional discharge and retained possession of the foal.
In another recent case, eight kittens were found suffering from flu ringworm, fleas, lice and other infestations. They were suffering so gravely that a vet said:
I was obliged to euthanase them as a matter of humanity.
The same owner refused to seek veterinary treatment for a cat with an injured eye. After 14 days, an RSPCA inspector took the cat to a vet where it had to have its eye surgically removed. Despite being found guilty of nine cruelty offences, the woman was allowed to keep the cat, plus at least 10 others whose condition gave cause for concern.
Many people share the fears of animal lovers and of the RSPCA for the future of animals like the cat abandoned without food or water for 35 days, which was returned to its owner after payment of a £1·20 fine. Like the society, people wonder whether a £200 fine is a sufficient penalty for a farmer who castrated a bull without any anaesthetic, and using a pair of pliers. What barbaric behaviour.
There are dozens more cases like these of people clearly showing themselves to be unfit to assume the responsibility of ownership of animals but being allowed to retain ownership of them. I hope and believe that anyone who agrees that the law must be changed will support my Bill today, which seeks to give greater protection for animals.
We have all read about, and I have mentioned, the horrific dog fighting cases brought before the courts in the past year or so. Because of the revitalisation of this medieval so-called sport — I say "sport" advisedly — I have introduced this Bill so that those who blatantly cause unnecessary suffering to animals may be realistically punished. The Protection of Animals Act 1911 has fallen far behind modern needs, and no longer does the penalty fit the crime. Violence has increased over the years, but there are those in our society who have sunk to a new low. They are the undesirables who have, with their atrocious


acts, taken us back to the middle ages when fighting between animals for pleasure was commonplace. It is always heart-rending when one hears or reads of animal neglect, but fighting promoted between animals goes much further than neglect. It is a deep evil, and wanton and deliberate cruelty which causes the animals concerned tremendous suffering and, on occasions, leads to death.
If the so-called sport of dog fighting had been mentioned in the House a few years ago, I am sure that many of those present would have merely raised an eyebrow, because it was not heard of. It was heard of early in the last century, but it was not heard of in the 1980s. Late in the 1970s, a trickle of American pit bull terriers began to appear in Britain. This caused officers of the special investigations department of the RSPCA to take an interest in those arrivals. Due to their persistence—and I pay great tribute to them—it has been proved beyond doubt that many of the more unsavoury characters of our populace accept dog fighting as a sport and readily import pit bull terriers from America for that purpose. Using this breed, together with our indigenous Staffordshire bull terrier and bull terrier breeds, they have bred and sold copious numbers of progeny. Hundreds of young "fighting machines" are now on the circuit, or available for new ownership throughout the nation.
If these dogs take a hold with their teeth on another dog — or even on a human being, if they have been provoked to that extent — they will not let go until death. That basic ferocity in them can be brought out and they can be dangerous. I read in the press recently of a pit bull terrier trained to fight which tore a human being to death in the United States. It is clear that people may be training dogs but then not controlling them. There is a great danger in that which should be noted.
Proof is available that those involved in this diabolical sport are quite often known criminals who take very good care to cover their tracks. Perseverance brought the first breakthrough in such investigations, when a dog fight venue in Potters Bar was raided in 1985 by five RSPCA officers and two police officers. This was the first such raid of the century, and it overcame the skill which promoters of dog fights have shown in recent years when the sport has been increasing of having look-outs and of finding distant and remote places for dog fights. Sometimes they use remote buildings, and sometimes fights between dogs have been promoted in deep pits in the ground as well as in other areas. The promoters cover themselves extremely cleverly by having people look out for police and anyone else who may pay attention so that they get quick warning of any difficulty. Things are covered over very fast and prosecution has been almost impossible.
This was the first prosecution, and it was a great achievement. The prosecution and the ensuing publicity brought more help from the public and consequently three more groups of dog fighters were arrested. In all, 29 persons have been taken into custody and 20 of them have been convicted in the courts. One case in Derbyshire, the result of which should have been known today, has been postponed, so unfortunately we do not know the result.
There can be no excuse for anyone taking part in this sport. Only heavy fines with a longer available prison sentence can be the right deterrent. The parent Protection of Animals Act is dated 1911. That is a long time ago and

the social scene was very different then. There have been some amendments to the Act over the years, but public opinion now demands an overdue update.
The officers investigating this wicked business are well aware that, although there have been successes in the past two years, they have touched only the tip of the iceberg. They have prepared themselves for a protracted investigation and this House should offer them and the courts every assistance possible by strengthening the legislation and by increasing the penalties within that legislation. In this way, perhaps some of these criminals will be persuaded to stop their unnecessary activities. In this Bill, I ask that the penalties be increased from level 4 to level 5. There are other provisions in the Act which must be revised in due course, but the penalties I have mentioned require change now.
I shall mention one other idea which could assist when offenders are before the courts in future and which my hon. Friend the Minister might consider. Section 1(1)(c) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 states that if any person
shall cause, procure or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal
he will be guilty of an offence. I believe that the word "attend" should be added. This would have the effect of dealing with any person found at the scene of a dog fight and it would alleviate legal battles during court hearings when people have been charged with assisting. My hon. Friend the Minister may like to consider this, but I realise that it is likely to be outside the scope of the Bill.
The United States faces an even worse problem with dog fighting, but most states have made the offence a felony with heavy fines and up to two years imprisonment. In those states people are arrested for attending without legal argument. I believe that people who attend the cruel spectacle of dog fighting are just as guilty as those who stage the fights.
From the point of view of animal welfare, I believe that it would be ideal to include the names of RSPCA inspectors in the wording of animal legislation. After all, this fine organisation was formed in 1824 — prior to Robert Peel and the police force. Whatever is said regarding animal welfare, the inspectors of the society have been the mainstay for animal protection and law enforcement since the society's inception. Other countries have provisions for animal welfare organisations that are offsprings from our RSPCA. Is it not time that we recognised the oldest and largest animal welfare organisation in the world?
I have been informed by Chief Superintendent Frank Milner, who heads the special investigations department of the RSPCA, that reports have reached him, emanating from the dog fighting fraternity, which suggest that they are dreading any increased penalties. That is a most encouraging prospect for the Bill that I am inviting the House to pass on Third Reading today. The word is getting about among the promoters of dog fights and they are worried. Mr. Milner tells me that information received from reliable sources suggests that promoters believe that a fine is one thing, but they dread increased prison sentences. That is all the more reason why the Bill must proceed.
The Bill has a straightforward aim — to double the maximum penalties for offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. The present maxima are a fine not exceeding £1,000, or three months imprisonment, or both.


That fine would become £2,000, which is level 5 on the standard scale, or six months imprisonment, or both. Since the Second Reading of the Bill, substantial drafting amendments have been made in Committee. I believe that it is appropriate to explain the amendments to the House.
Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill, but unfortunately the original drafting of the clause requires alteration. Clause 1 of the original Bill referred to the words "Fifty pounds" in section 1(1) of the 1911 Act. The Bill proposed to substitute for those words
level 5 on the standard scale".
However, section 1(1) of the 1911 Act no longer contains the words "fifty pounds". The maximum £50 fine was replaced by first a £500 maximum, which under the Criminal Justice Act 1982 became level 4 on the standard scale—that level was increased to the current maximum of £1,000 in 1984. Obviously, nothing can be substituted for the words "fifty pounds" if they are no longer in section (1) of the 1911 Act. The amendment therefore changed this clause of the Bill to ensure that the proposed new maximum penalties of imprisonment for up to six months or a fine not exceeding level 5, or both, were inserted.
The second amendment altered clause 1 of the Bill so that the changes in the maximum penalties under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 which this Bill provides for cannot apply in relation to offences committed before the Bill takes effect. We all respect the reasons for not having retrospective legislation. The House will readily appreciate that it is important that everyone should know clearly what are the likely consequences of their actions if they commit a criminal offence. The maximum penalty that may be imposed if they are convicted of any offence must be certain at the time that that offence is committed. The law cannot shift the goal posts during the match. That is an important principle and, as well as being good practice, I understand that a provision of that sort is contained in article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clearly right to maintain that point of principle and also to comply with our obligations under the convention.
The third amendment changed the short title of the Bill so that it now reads "Protection of Animals (Penalties) Bill 1987". That is to reflect the fact that the Bill seeks to amend the penalties for all offences of cruelty under the 1911 Act, not just for dog lighting. Although my central remarks have been related to dog fighting, how it is promoted and the effects of such fighting, I have an equally strong, determined and powerful condemnation of the promoters of fights between any animals. I welcome the agreement of the Committee to broaden the Bill to protect all animals. That can do nothing but good.
The fourth amendment inserted a new subsection in clause 2 providing for the repeal of two items of associated legislation that are made redundant by the Bill. The first repeal is the Protection of Animals Act (1911) Amendment Act 1912. That Act has a lengthy title, but it had only one effect—to reduce from six months to three months the maximum sentence of imprisonment that could be imposed under section 1(1) of the 1911 Act. The second change is to schedule 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The 1977 Act provides for increases in the maximum fines that could be imposed under a variety of other statutes. For offences under section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, the maximum fine was increased from £50 to £500. That was set out in schedule 6 to the 1977 Act. The

Bill seeks to repeal that provision. I believe that those repeals are helpful changes that will remove any possible ambiguity in the law.
The final amendment agreed in Committee was to make a minor drafting change to the extent provision in the Bill clause 2(3). As presented on Second Reading, the clause referred to "Scotland and Northern Ireland". The amendment changed the wording to "Scotland or Northern Ireland", which is the customary formulation.
The Bill has a long history. My original concern had been to obtain increased maximum penalties for the barbaric activity of dog fighting. I originally proposed 10 years imprisonment and a fine of £10,000 for each conviction. I strongly believe that the country would like to see that happen. None the less, it would be a great jump from the present penalties. I appreciate that we must move progressively in such matters. I believe that the Bill, as amended in Committee, is a proper compromise and I am happy with it.
In the past year or so a number of well-publicised cases of dog fighting and cock fighting have come to court. They have served to throw the spotlight on the brutality involved in such activities. There is parliamentary and public concern about those and other forms of ill treatment of animals.
I greatly appreciate the support and encouragement of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the move to enable the penalties imposed on those found guilty of such offences to reflect more fully the public revulsion of those activities. I believe that the proper penalties proposed in the Bill will act as a positive deterrent to all forms of cruelty to animals.
I should like to thank all the hon. Members who helped to take the Bill through Committee, in particular the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) whose timely assistance facilitated the passage of the Bill. I also warmly thank the RSPCA; its support has been invaluable. Without question there is a need for the Bill.
It is frequently said that the test of civilisation in any country is the treatment meted out to dumb animals who cannot retaliate or speak for themselves. I regret to say that on occasions in our society, and in others which are much worse than ours, dumb animals are treated as if they have no feelings and no right to reasonable treatment. That is wrong, inhuman and wicked. Anyone who treats animals in an inhumane way, particularly by pushing them against their will into practising the most lurid aspects of their nature, such as being driven to fight to the death, is guilty of a grave sin and serious evil against society. The Bill will go a substantial way towards remedying that, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am glad that I was present when the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made his speech. I strongly support his views, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who cannot be here today.
We heard the hon. Gentleman's comments about cruelty to animals with all the horror that we feel when hearing such stories. When I was a child playing on waste ground I remember finding kittens or puppies tied up in a sack ready to be thorwn into a pond to be drowned. Such incidents had a profound effect on me and on other young people who found cruelty to animals unacceptable. I am encouraged that in the London area teachers are spending


more time teaching young people about the importance of respect for life and of not deriving enjoyment from suffering.
I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North agrees that further action must be taken in due course. I think in particular of some aspects of hunting. I find it difficult to justify condemning dog fighting while not being critical of hunting for pleasure. I can understand killing for food or to control animal populations, but when it is for sheer sport there is something unhealthy about it. It must be wrong for a person to enjoy killing or the pursuit of the kill.
We should also examine the powers of the police and RSPCA inspectors to enter premises with a warrant when they believe that an animal is suffering unduly. Such powers must be exercised carefully, because civil rights are involved. Appalling suffering can be experienced by an animal but the RSPCA and the police are unable to gain entry to relieve the animal's suffering.
The hon. Gentleman was right to accept the relatively small increase in the fine and prison sentence. The answer to the problem is not be to be found simply in bunging up the fine or sentence. That will not work as a deterrent. We must have a more sophisticated approach to education. We should also consider the appointment by local authorities of dog wardens and others with powers to look after, protect and pick up strays. Dog wardens are already appointed by Northern Ireland authorities.
A variety of animals are at risk, as well as dogs. Our society is full of contradictions and double standards. We make great play of our love of dogs, cats and horses, yet we spend enormous sums killing horses so that their meat can be fed to the dogs and cats who appear so regularly on television advertisements.
It is right to move in the direction proposed by the Bill and to use the law to ensure that animals are not cruelly treated. The Bill is a small step in that direction.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on his initiative in introducing the Bill. There is no doubt that it might have been some time before the Government were able to give time for such an important Bill. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the problem before the House upon so many occasions. His reputation in this area is unparalleled in the House. His knowledge of animals, particularly horses, is based on deep experience. He understands these matters in a way that few other hon. Members understand them. I am glad to pay my hon. Friend that tribute on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, because without him I doubt whether such a Bill would have been introduced at this time.
The Government are pleased to support my hon. Friend. His Bill is an important part of the programme for improving the protection of animals. The Government have a distinguished record in extending protection under the law for animals. An obvious and important example is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as is the extensive protection provided under the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981. They are two major statutory vehicles by which this Government have been able to extend general protection for animals.
A host of other actions have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Government have taken many executive and administrative actions and have a continuing programme for the protection of animals.

Mr. Greenway: I much appreciate my hon. Friend's tribute and the Government's support for the Bill. I thank the Minister and his staff.
Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that it took from 1911 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to update legislation to protect animals? It is sad that there was such an enormous gap when nothing was done. Can my hon. Friend account for that?

Mr. Hogg: That is an interesting question, but it is not correct to say that there were no changes during the long time between 1911 and today. Changes were made to statutes from time to time. For example, legislation was introduced in 1933. I forget the name of the Act, but it enabled the courts to disqualify a person from keeping a dog if that person was proved guilty of cruelty to a dog. There are other examples of amending legislation introduced between 1911 and 1987.
My hon. Friend asks why no other major amending legislation has been introduced. I cannot answer that, except to say that I have a feeling that we are only now, perhaps rather late in the day, beginning to see disturbing evidence of an increase in cruelty to animals. Perhaps that has not been the case for a number of years. My hon. Friend mentioned dog fighting—

Mr. Greenway: On the important point of disqualification, my hon. Friend rightly said that it has been possible since the 1930s to disqualify people from keeping dogs. However, is he aware that, when someone has been banned from keeping a dog following conviction for promoting dog fighting, his wife can keep that dog in the same house? Hence that individual can be found walking the dog, and only after that can the dog be removed. So the position is not wholly satisfactory. Will the Home Office consider extending disqualification from keeping animals to the disqualification of two people who are found guilty of cruelty to horses, cats or other domestic animals?

Mr. Hogg: I was going to come to that important point, but if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall deal with it now.
First, it is necessary to define the present position. On first conviction for cruelty to a dog, a person may be disqualified from keeping it. That power does not extend to owners of other animals on a first conviction. For other animals, the power of disqualification arises only on second or subsequent convictions. It is interesting that it was not until 1954 that the power to disqualify for other animals came into being. The power to disqualify in respect of dogs was introduced in the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) Act 1933. For other animals, such protection was not available until the 1954 Act.
I am sorry that our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is not here today, because he played a prominent part way back in 1954—all of 33 years ago—in extending the protection to other animals.


Under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954, a magistrates court on second or subsequent conviction of an offender under the 1911 Act can disqualify a person from keeping any animal covered by the Act. However, that power applies only on second or subsequent convictions.
That legislation started as a private Member's Bill and it is interesting to note why the power of disqualification was so limited. That limitation was promoted mainly by a member of the Conservative party, Mr. Remnant, who was then the hon. Member for Wokingham. He explained the reasons for a limited power of disqualification in these terms:
the animals in respect of which there may be cruelty are, by their very nature, likely to be the means of livelihood of the individual, such as cattle, sheep, pigs and so on, and I think it is fair to provide an opportunity for the individual offender to be given a sharp reminder if the first offence is a bad case, rather than to disqualify him." — [Official Report, 12 February 1954; Vol. 523, c. 1541.]
He continued by saying that it would be wrong to deprive such an individual of his livelihood on first conviction.
Perhaps public sensitivity has changed on these matters. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that we should consider amending the 1911 and 1954 legislation to give the courts a power upon first conviction for cruelty to disqualify any person from keeping any animal. In other words, we should be extending the power of disqualification from keeping any animal to make it the same as the power of disqualification from keeping a dog. Clearly, that would require primary legislation.
We have a choice: Government legislation or private Members' legislation. Of course, I could not promise at this stage that Government legislation would be introduced because that would depend on a suitable slot in the programme, the agreement of my colleagues and so on. If my hon. Friend is again successful in the private Members' ballot — I hope he will be — perhaps he will consider introducing a private Members' Bill to amend the 1954 Act so that the power of disqualification in respect of other animals can apply on first conviction. He might then find that the Home Office was able to give him enthusiastic support, and I am sure that most hon. Members on both sides of the House would be minded to support such legislation.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend raised an interesting point that I was beginning to answer on banning powers. He asked me why, in my opinion, the penalties had not been increased until now. Probably that is because there has been an increase in cruelty to animals, which has brought the matter to the attention of Parliament. There is some evidence for that: the figures show that, over six years, there has been a gradual increase in the number of offences brought before the courts.
In 1980. proceedings were brought against 809 persons. In 1981, the number had increased to 833. In 1982, there was a small decline to 822. In 1983, the figure increased to 839 and in 1984 to 875. In 1985, there was a further increase to 989. I regret to say that I cannot give the figure for 1986, but the point is that there has been a gradual increase in the number of persons against whom proceedings have been taken.
There is some evidence of an increase in the number of offences committed. So much can he extrapolated from the

figures. Perhaps just as important, there is evidence of increased consciousness of the need to take proceedings against people who are discovered to have committed offences against animals. People who are guilty of these sorts of offence must expect to have proceedings instituted against them in the courts. In that context, my hon. Friend's Bill is of great significance.
It might be of interest to know something about the penalties that the courts have been imposing on those found guilty. There has been a steady increase in the number of cases in which a prison sentence has been imposed. Again, a few figures might illustrate that proposition. In 1980, 11 people were sentenced to prison; in 1981, 10 people were sentenced to prison; in 1982, six people were thus sentenced; and in 1983, there were 10. In both 1984 and 1985, 19 people were sentenced to prison. I cannot give the figures for 1986, but I shall try to make them available to my hon. Friend.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the point the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) would make at this stage — that one should be chary of imposing prison sentences on people for non-violent offences. The hon. Gentleman and I have spoken frequently on this subject at different venues, but most notably in Committee. I think that he probably supports the view that. when dealing with cruelty to animals, there must be a residuary power in the hands of the courts to sentence individuals to a period of imprisonment when they are dealing with gross offences, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to give the Bill his support. One of the effects of the Bill is to increase the maximum period of imprisonment to six months. I do not expect, however, that that maximum period will be imposed too often.

Mr. Soley: I agree that there is a need for the residual power of imprisonment, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with my argument that educating society, and especially young people, to have respect for animals and to treat them properly is all-important. Education, the ability to withdraw a licence where a person has abused the terms of it, and the power of entry will probably be more useful means of prevention than the occasional imposition of imprisonment when a person needs to be locked up as an example of society's disapprobation of an especially cruel offence.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has said that he advanced three propositions, and I think that courtesy demands that I should try to deal with them. The first proposition was education, the second licensing, and the third right of entry. Education is important because cruelty to animals is a manifestation of a sickness in the individual. I hesitate to generalise, but for all I know it may be a manifestation of sickness in society. The broader application of education that is not merely confined to schools is an important instrument in trying to persuade people of the social obligations that they owe both to their neighbours and their animals. I agree that education must be an important instrument.
I approach licensing with great reservation because I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by it in this context. There are banning provisions in respect of dogs in the 1933 legislation and in the 1954 legislation for other animals. When a person has been found guilty of an offence of cruelty to animals, it is right that there should


be a power to ban that person from keeping an animal. To that extent the hon. Gentleman and I are speaking as one. I think that he might support legislation to extend banning powers to ensure that they apply to all animals on first conviction. I note that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.

Mr. Soley: I am considering licensing in the wider sense. The Government should be considering—I believe that they did consider this at one time—extending the dog warden scheme that exists in Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom, which would involve making the necessary facilities available to local authorities. That would be an important way of making the existing licensing scheme more effective.
Secondly, I would be sympathetic to the idea of extending banning, but I think that there should be a more flexible system than a total ban. There might be cases where the cruelty is of a marginal sort, or particular circumstances might attach to it. We might want to make a certain type of licence available or to provide that a person will be able to recover his licence if he satisfies certain conditions. There are a number of approaches to consider; that is why I think that the Minister is right to offer the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) the opportunity of legislating, if he is lucky enough to secure a high place in the ballot, by means of a private Member's Bill to ensure that there is a flexible system and not a blunderbuss either/or approach.

Mr. Hogg: To extend the banning powers by amending the 1954 Act—that Act is substantially the same as the 1933 Act but its scope is broader — is only to give a discretionary power to the court. Therefore, the court could implement the banning power and make a prohibition order. Alternatively, it could choose not to do so. We would not he imposing any obligation on the court.
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am chary of what he says about licensing. I am beginning to visualise that the Opposition are coming forward with an extensive bureaucracy of control, one from which I shrink as a matter of general policy — and I am sure rightly. I believe that we should avoid bureaucratic controls whereever possible. Therefore, I am sceptical about an elaborate licensing system which itself can be used as a mechanism for preventing people from keeping animals.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend's offer of Home Office support if I were to introduce a further private Member's Bill is generous and I shall take it up at the earliest possible opportunity. From my experience, it is clear that those who are found to have been consistently cruel to animals—cruelty that could lead to a ban on first conviction of the sort that my hon. Friend has described — do not change their ways. Therefore, the power to ban on first conviction would be appropriate. That leads me to believe that bureaucracy would be unhelpful, although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is bending over backwards in trying to be fair. I wish to add merely that I strongly support what my hon. Friend says and that I think that he has my point precisely.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I value his support in these matters. I am conscious that he has unparalleled experience of the matters to which we are addressing ourselves. When he says that we should avoid

bureaucracy in the introduction of licensing as a means of controlling those who own dogs, I take that to be a powerful argument on which I would rely.

Mr. Soley: Let us try to clarify what is becoming an increasingly complex issue that might better be dealt with in Committee when we come to examine a future Bill. The dog warden system was introduced by the Government in Northern Ireland with the support of the Opposition, and I am saying that the system needs to be introduced to the rest of the United Kingdom, with the necessary resources being made available to local authorities. That would be no great extension of bureaucracy. The system is a sensible one and it seems to be working well in Northern Ireland.
The suggestion that a conviction of cruelty to an animal should lead to all other animals being banned to the individual or to the rest of the family raises complex considerations. The hon. Member for Ealing, North used the phrase "consistently cruel", but that is only part of the problem. If the other partner, the husband or wife, or perhaps a child of the family, cannot have an animal because of what one other member of the family has done, we are entering a difficult area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Briefly, please.

Mr. Soley: I wish to say as briefly as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government would need carefully to examine the way in which legislation was drafted if they were not to introduce a system that would be so black and white as to he inappropriate to the needs of the day.

Mr. Hogg: I heard your call for order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief in dealing with the matter that the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to raise. The complexity of his arguments suggests that these are considerations that we should be examining in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Gentleman's third proposition was the right of entry, which I know has received some support from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. It is being asked whether it would be right to give an extended power of entry to private dwelling houses where there is evidence of cruelty to animals. This is an emotive and difficult subject, but we are dealing with an issue of considerable importance. I am the first to recognise that in some instances it is not easy to obtain evidence of the sort that would satisfy the court unless there is a right of entry into a dwelling house. It is in that context that one must consider the propositions that have been put forward.
In substance, there are two propositions: first, that an official of the RSPCA should have a right of entry into a private house, subject, of course, to authority of the court; secondly, that police officers should be given an extended power. There are problems with both propositions. We must begin by recognising — the hon. Member for Hammersmith, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and I, recognise it—that a power of entry of that kind is a major infringement of liberty. We must never under-estimate the importance of the privacy that people have in their own homes, and we should infringe it only if there is a powerful and compelling reason for doing so and if the House is prepared to justify it to the nation.
Let us consider the proposed power for RSPCA officials. I have the highest regard for the credibility, hard


work and integrity of officials employed by the Royal Society for the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals, but we must ask whether it is right to give people, who are only officials of a private institution, powers of entry into another person's home. I am not persuaded that it would be right to give officials of a private institution, however good that institution may be, the right of entry into a person's dwelling. It would be difficult to persuade the House that such an infringement was right. It is not easy—indeed, it may be impossible—to think of precedents. I am instinctively hostile to that suggestion, not because I under-estimate the importance of the work or disparage the RSPCA in any way, but because I do not think that the principle involved could properly be commended to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the debate is going rather wide of the Bill. I hope that we will get back to the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was conscious, too, that my remarks were wandering a little wide. Perhaps you will permit me to deal with the other point that was raised—about police officers. I should be sorry not to have the opportunity of considering that matter.
The question that then arises is whether one should give police officers extended powers of entry. Again, I have considerable reservations. The power of entry and the power to issue search warrants were considered at length during the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and that power is confined to the more serious arrestable offences. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith. my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know, offences under the 1911 Act are not classified as arrestable offences. Even if they were arrestable offences, it would be extremely difficult, in all conscience, to hold that they were serious arrestable offences in the context of that phrase as it is used by the House. Therefore, we would be contemplating a major extension of the existing legislation, which I would find it difficult to support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North raised an important point about persons who attend dog fights. He asked whether, in this Bill or in some subsequent legislation, we should create an offence of attending dog fighting. To some extent, I can satisfy him by reference to existing legislation. A little research has been done and the position is rather clearer than it was when the matter was first debated by my hon. Friend.
Section 47 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and section 36 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 already provide that any person found without lawful excuse in any house, room, pit or other place kept or used for the purpose of fighting or baiting any animal shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level one on the standard scale. The effect of that legislation is that attending a dog fight would be an unlawful activity, both in areas covered by the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and elsewhere in the country. Therefore, legislation is already in place, which meets the point that my hon. Friend raised. He will raise with me a difficulty—the fact that the maximum penalty is only a scale 1 penalty, of £50.
So I have another suggestion to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—that he should

introduce another private Member's Bill. Of course, unless, the Government have a suitable vehicle, it would not be possible for us to amend either piece of legislation, but my hon. Friend already has in mind a private Members' Bill to extend the banning powers. We have already discussed that matter. It would be perfectly possible for my hon. Friend to tag on that Bill a clause to increase the scale—it could be scale 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5—and apply it to the two pieces of legislation to which I have drawn attention.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the important point that he has made in response to my request to look at the possibility of making attendance at dog fights or any other promoted fights between animals a convictable offence. I am glad to have the information that he has put before the House. I shall certainly take up his offer of introducing amending legislation to increase the scale of penalties for those who are found guilty of attendance at animal baiting. I appreciate what he has said, and I shall act upon it as soon as possible.

Mr. Hogg: I am encouraged to hear that. The hon. Member for Hammersmith would want to lend his support to that legislation. He may be able to bring some members of his party with him when he does so.
I ask my hon. Friend, when he contemplates that legislation, not to introduce legislation that would make any such offences triable on indictment. In effect, my hon. Friend called for the legislation to be beefed up. I hope that he will take the view that we should leave such offences as summary offences. I should be sorry if he were to consider making such offences triable on indictment, partly because the Crown courts are already heavily overloaded, and partly, too, because the swiftness of justice and the swiftness of the administration of a penalty is a powerful deterrent. If a person has the opportunity to go to the Crown court, naturally it will make for a delay. Indeed, if one considers the penalties that have been imposed by the courts in recent years, one would be right to question whether it would be right to take such matters to the Crown court.
I have a few figures about the imposition of fines. In 1985, of those fined under the Protection of Animals Act. 1911, 514 people were fined less than £100, 148 were fined between £100 and £200, 35 were fined between £200 and £500, and only six were fined between £500 and £1,000. The great majority of fines, over 500 of them, were under £100.
I think that my hon. Friend would say, and I echo the view, that the courts should attach to offences of this kind a greater significance than;perhaps they have done hitherto. Although it is probably not necessary in terms of meeting justice to extend the penalties in the way that my hon. Friend has in mind, nevertheless we are today sending an important signal to the courts. It is that Parliament believes that these are very serious offences and that the courts should punish offenders in the context of the penalties that we are setting out.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept my argument that those who attend animal baiting meetings and bet at them are as guilty as those evil men and women who promote the fights between the animals in the first place? If they are, does my hon. Friend accept my argument that they should be hit at least as hard as the promoters?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot give a conclusive view on the matter because I have not directed my mind to what should be the appropriate maximum penalty under the legislation to which I have drawn attention—the two statutes which make attendance at dog fighting unlawful. In principle, I think that the maximum of scale 1 is too low. Although I should have to take advice and find the opinion of colleagues and go through all the hoops that junior Ministers have to hop through, I can see no objection in principle to extending the maximum penalties to scale 5 and to six months' imprisonment for offenders.
That does not answer the question whether there is the same degree of culpability between the promoter and the person who attends. I do not think that one can answer that question sensibly. There is probably not the same degree of culpability, certainly not in every case. There is a whole range of reasons why people attend. In some cases they attend out of idle curiosity. A person who attends for that reason is not doing a very attractive thing, but his moral culpability is probably less than that of the promoter.
A person might attend because he is a trainer of fighting dogs—if such a person exists. His degree of culpability is certainly the same as that of the promoter. Then there is the person who attends because he is brought along by the promoter, someone who just tags along. His degree of culpability is less than that of the promoter. I am not able to give a conclusive answer to my hon. Friend, save to say that there is a broad spectrum of motive. Sometimes those who attend are as guilty as the promoter and sometimes they are not as guilty.
You have been extremely forbearing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have allowed me to extend the range of debate rather wider than perhaps I should have done. However, a number of important points have been raised, including some by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I am grateful to him for his support. I wish that the Labour party would give us more support more frequently, but it was nice to see the hon. Gentleman supporting us in this debate. I have also been asked a large number of important questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North. Therefore, it was important for me to have an opportunity to respond in detail. However, I am grateful to you, Sir, because I know that I have trespassed somewhat on your patience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North deserves tribute from the House because he has directed his efforts and his skills to meeting a problem which is of increasing significance. By way of his Bill he has sent an important message to the courts and, much more important, to those who are involved in these activities. It is an important message which I hope that both will heed. As part of our programme of extending protection to animals, the Government are very pleased not only to support the Bill but even to improve it in parts. We have an extremely good record in animal protection. My hon. Friend, Home Office officials and the Government in general working together have introduced an important piece of legislation and I hope that it will receive the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motor Cycle Noise Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Schedule

OFFENCES AND ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Robert Adley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, leave out from second 'provisions' to end of line 36.
In what may be the dog days of this Parliament, the amendment seeks to make a simple correction to the drafting of the Bill. It takes account of revised schedule 2 to the Consumer Safety Act 1978, which was introduced by the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986, with which we are all familiar in detail. The amendment is purely technical and does not affect the intention of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): It is probably best on Report if I stick precisely to the amendment. Later, I should like to say one or two things about the measure. The Government support the amendment. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it corrects and simplifies the reference in his Bill to schedule 2 to the Consumer Safety Act 1978.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Adley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As hon. Members will know, this is the first time that we have had an opportunity fully to debate this measure on the Floor of the House. I shall do my best not to stray beyond the bounds of order, but, of course, we are dealing with an important matter involving road safety and environmental and health considerations and I trust that you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to touch on some of these issues.
I thank my hon. and injured Friend the Minister, who is suffering from severe back problems. I hope that if he is called upon to intervene in my speech, or if I seek to intervene in his, and particularly in the latter case, the convention under which my hon. Friend has to keep bobbing up and down can be waived. I hope that that situation will not arise, but if it does I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will welcome your concern for his physical condition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): If a Minister or an hon. Member is suffering discomfort, it is within the power of the House to allow him to speak from a sedentary position.

Mr. Adley: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that. I am not sure whether he would be better off standing up or sitting down, but before we get too involved in this I am sure that your remarks will be warmly welcomed by my hon. Friend in his hour of pain and need.
I should like to thank my sponsors. This is very much an all-party Bill and has received considerable support from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. As I did in Committee, I should like to thank the officials at the Department of Transport. Hon. Members take all the credit for Bills like this, but very often it is the


civil servants who do all the work. There is no harm in putting that on record, and I pay tribute to the civil servants for the generous time that they spent in preparing and bringing forward the Bill.
Today we will not see the Press Gallery crammed full, and radio and television will not hang on our every word, as this piece of legislation, or. as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) called it in his O-level Latin, "leg-islation", is debated. I do not know how Hansard will cope with that one. This debate will not attract a great deal of attention. The House is quietly and constructively debating a measure on which it is united. It is sad, but perhaps, inevitable, in a democratic society that only when there is aggravation and unpleasantness that the cameras appear, microphones are switched on and the newspapers come running. I am perfectly happy that our little discussion and debate today should achieve its objective rather than attract a great deal of attention.
I want now to consider matters that do attract a great deal of attention. The high-pitched whine of a deliberately exacerbated noisy motor cycle must come fairly near to the top of the list of those noises and intrusions into life that draw attention to themselves. The peace and quiet of a summer night in the countyside or of suburban slumberers on housing estates can be disturbed by that unpleasant and aggravating noise. People can be worked up into a considerable froth and lather. The Bill seeks to deal with that social nuisance.
There are two principles at stake in the Bill. The first is our attempt to deal with a noise, deliberately made. I shall stress that in more detail shortly. We are not dealing with the everyday activities of motor cyclists. We are dealing with a handful of people who quite deliberately set out to make as much noise as possible. That is unacceptable if their activities disturb and aggravate the majority of their fellow citizens who are merely seeking to go about their lawful and peaceful business.
The second principle relates to environmental pollution, of which noise is a clear manifestation. I believe that in the House we have a responsibility ruthlessly to tackle environmental pollution. In its small way, the Bill tries to do that. The internal combustion engine is a uniquely nasty source of environmental pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is one of the sponsors of the Bill. With his Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Controls and Regulations) Act 1973 he took a first and important step to rein back on the environmental pollution caused by vehicles on our streets and on our roads. Indeed, the latest transgressor to a long list of polluters could easily be construed to be the modern coach being driven in a way which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), when a Minister at the Department of Transport described as "intimidating". Furthermore, coaches are parked illegally on the streets of our towns and cities, with their engines running, causing vile fumes to be flung into the faces of motorists and pedestrians. I hope that the House will deal with that matter in due course.
It is clear that no self-discipline is being exercised by the bus and coach industry on that point. The Government are being forced to use legislative powers to deal with another aspect of road safety by forcing speed-governors on the coach industry. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will recognise that the

noise and fumes aspect—and we are dealing with motor cycle noise in the Bill — or coaches is a matter with which the Department of Transport must deal next.
I can safely say that this :is likely to be a popular Bill in its attempt to deal with a source of great aggravation. I want however, to stress clearly that the Bill is in no way anti-motor cycle. No hon. Member who has supported the Bill or was a member of the Committee was motivated by spite or hostility towards motor cycling. Indeed, particularly in many rural areas, the mobility provided by the motor cycle for people on low incomes is a vital part of their lives. I do not want the message to leave the House that the Bill is hostile to the interests of motor cyclists.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of my constituents who are motor cyclists have welcomed the Bill? They believe that the ill-feeling caused by the appalling noise made by some cycles gives the whole motor cycle fraternity a bad name. My constituents welcome the measure.

Mr. Adley: I believe that my hon. Friend must have been peering metaphorically over my shoulder. I wholeheartedly concur with her comments. I shall carry straight on from the cue with which she has kindly provided me and amplify the point that she has just made.
I have received strong support from the Motor Cycle Association for the Bill. I want to put on record my thanks to that association for the display of noisy exhaust systems that it showed to me as part of its campaign to get Parliament to deal with the problem which it knows—as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said — gives the motor cycling fraternity a bad name.
The British Motorcyclists Federation has also lent its strong support to the Bill. I want to quote from a letter that I received from Mr. John Chatterton-Ross, the director of Government relations for the British Motorcyclists Federation. He wrote:
I am writing on behalf of the British Motorcyclists Federation to give our support to your work on this subject, which I understand is the subject of a bill sponsored by you.
Around fifty thousand motorcyclists belong to the BMF and we regard the solution of the noise problem as a matter of the first importance.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West. She echoed the sentiments of those responsible elements within the motor cycling fraternity who recognise that they all suffer and that their hobby and interest suffers as a result of a handful of unfortunately motivated people.
Support for the Bill ranges far wider than that. I have received a number of quite surprising communications of support. I do not want to weary the House this morning with endless quotations. However, I was impressed and particularly delighted to receive a letter from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I want to quote from the director general of that association, Mr. John Groom. He wrote:
May I congratulate you on the progress of your Bill and may it soon become law. As an individual I have sometimes been asked were I a legislator what single measure would I like enforced; my answer has invariably been a measure to combat noise pollution and especially the searing racket created by motor cycles.
But I also write on behalf of the 160,000 registered blind people and guide dog owners in particular. Noise for all of them, so reliant on hearing, is a blind man's fog. Indeed, wind is described in such terms. The success of your Bill will help every one of them.


Only a very immodest person would not be humbled to receive a letter such as that.
Amongst the numerous representations from diverse quarters of our nation, I have received support from the Lancashire Association of Parish Councils, from the planning and transportation committee of the Association of District Councils, as well as from numerous individuals, local authorities at all levels, my constituents and from hon. Members' constituents all over the country.
The purpose of my Bill is specifically to control the quality of replacement exhaust systems and silencers for motor cycles when they are offered for sale. I stress the words "when they are offered for sale". New motor cycles must comply with the noise limits set out in European Community directives, and replacement silencers should match the original equipment in quality and performance. Many of the cheaper replacements currently on the market do not do so. To anyone who doubts that, I commend a visit to the Motor Cycle Association to see the wide variety of deliberately noisy exhaust systems that are available for sale.
There is now a British standard for motor cycle exhausts, and the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to require replacements to be marked with a standard number or with the words "Not for road use". It will mean that all silencers offered for sale must bear some marking. Again, I stress that we are dealing here not with the initial equipment supplied on new motor cycles, but with replacement exhausts deliberately designed to create as much noise as possible.
The enforcement of the Bill's provisions would be by trading standards officers employed by local authorities who would have powers largely identical to those provided in consumer safety legislation. At present, enforcement of the law against the use of noisy exhaust systems is an almost impossible task for the police, who are left to chase offenders round the countryside and towns. All hon. Members would agree that our police forces have many tasks laid upon them by the House and many calls upon their time by members of the public, and we could all, without difficulty, think of more urgent things for them to be doing than trying to deal with this problem. The Bill will enable trading standards officers to deal with the problem at source. It is a simple measure because it transfers to trading standards officers powers which until now they have not possessed.
The Bill provides for maximum penalties that will enable the courts to deal firmly with persistent offenders who might have much to gain from flouting the law by selling cheap, substandard silencers to young, immature riders who need little encouragement to make a nuisance of themselves. Noisy motor cycles are a nuisance. The Bill seeks to make them remain as quiet as they were when new, and it has the general support of all responsible motor cycle organisations, including riders and manufacturers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who is one of the Bill's supporters, has made the point several times to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to many of his colleagues that, in due course, he wishes the Government and the House to deal with the behaviour of the handful of anti-social motor cycle delivery drivers who

spend their time weaving in and out of traffic, causing great danger to themselves and potential danger to other road users.
Last night I had the honour to address the annual dinner of the Amicable Society of Blues, which is neither a supporters club for Chelsea football team nor anything to do with the Conservative party. As hon. Members will know, it is connected with Christ's hospital school. When I mentioned what I was doing this morning, I receive widespread support for my Bill. One of my fellow diners raised the problem of the deliberate leaving-on of the two-way radios fitted to delivery motor cycles. My hon. Friend the Minister might comment on whether the Government will support a measure to deal with that form of noise pollution.
May I ask my hon. Friend some more questions directly connected with the Bill? Is he satisfied that sufficient funds will be available to trading standards officers to enable them to carry out the tasks that they are being given by the Bill? I have had contact with trading standards officers, who have expressed anxiety about the funding that will be made available to them as a result of the Bill. Has my hon. Friend consulted them directly? If he has not, will he do so, not just on funding, but on whether they are satisfied that the Bill gives them all the powers that they need to deal with the problem?
What action will my hon. Friend take to publicise the measure? Although it would be inappropriate and unfortunate to pretend that merely by passing legislation we can eradicate the problem instantly, there is no doubt that the wider the publicity about the contents of the Bill, the more likely we are to discourage importers and those who sell these offensive pieces of equipment. I hope that my hon. Friend can find some funds for this purpose from his Department's budget for publicising measures that he wishes to bring to the attention of the public.
Has my hon. Friend yet had, or does he intend to have, contact with Customs and Excise officers so that we can deal with those who import noisy exhaust systems? I shall not be unkind enough to name the countries from which some of those systems come, but I urge my hon. Friend to consider that effective way of tackling the problem.
Noisy motor cycles are but a tiny example of the cost to the nation of trying to cope with the problems created by the internal combustion engine. We do not seem to hear much about the costs to society. We hear from the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Bus and Coach Council and from endless permutations of the road transport lobby about the wonderful manifestations of the internal combustion engine that they have been inflicted upon society. Rarely, if ever, do we hear about the immense range of problems, difficulties and costs that they impose upon society, of which noisy exhausts on motor cycles are just one example. Some of those organisations have made the ludicrous proposition that since motorists pay money in road tax and tax on fuel, it should be returned to motoring-related activities. It is one of the silliest and most illogical arguments that I have heard. It is the same as suggesting that the money raised by the Government in gambling tax should be spent on building more casinos. None of us would support that.
We should recognise that the road transport industry in all its manifestations is a ghastly environmental polluter. I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister a


recent report on the diesel engine by Friends of the Earth, and I hope that the Department will soon publish its response to that report. Even the Road Haulage Association recognises that there is much validity in some of the comments in that report.
If the Bill receives its Third Reading, I hope that events elsewhere will not overtake our attempt to place it on the statute book. To make the task of my hon. Friend the Minister easier, I have obtained the support of Lord Bottomley of Middlesbrough in the county of Cleveland to act as the Bill's sponsor in the other place. He is well known to many of us in this House, and is universally admired both here and in the other place. I am sure that he will give the Bill the treatment that it deserves and see it speedily on its way.
I commend the Bill to the House. The Government should act as soon as the Bill is on the statute book, and I hope to receive the support of the Minister in my small endeavours.

Mr. Bruce George: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for intervening at this stage, but as a member of the Defence Select Committee that investigated the Westland affair, I wish, through you, Sir, to ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity—probably on Monday —about the startling allegations about share dealings in Westland at a crucial time for the determination of that company's fate. I seek an assurance from the Minister that policy relating to critical defence industries is determined by legal process and by the Government, and not by the activities of anonymous and unidentifiable shareholders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for me, but his remarks will doubtless he passed on.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell the House whether the Department sought to make a statement today? The information indicates a serious concert party and suggests that the evidence lacking to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has now come forward. That sheds a very different light on these unhappy matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that no request has been made for a statement.

Mr. Clive Soley: Returning to the Bill — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would not say, "Hear, hear," when I hear of illegal share dealings. It happens so frequently these days that we should have a Minister permanently present to deal with the problem which damages the legal fabric of our country, as well as respect for law and order.
As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said. the Bill has all-party support, and no one will be surprised at that. I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman would receive all-party support for his comments about buses.

Mr. Adley: Coaches.

Mr. Soley: Or coaches. The Government of which the hon. Gentleman is such a great supporter have done much to decimate rural bus services, and to lower standards,

which we all know will continue to fall. In principle, what the hon. Gentleman says is right, but the Government have compounded an already difficult problem.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that the Bill is not to be seen as an anti-motor cyclist Bill. Many people have strong views about the safety and noise of motor cycles, but many people also know that motor cycles provide enjoyment and satisfaction and that they have a real use. Those who have been motor cyclists—I include myself — know of the satisfaction that motor cycling can give.
We must not discourage noise pollution and at the same time encourage atmospheric pollution, which represents an important part of the problem. I suspect that the Minister will be aware that that underlies some of the problems of legislating in this area.
I do not claim to be an expert — although I have some personal experience—but the problem arises not so much from the quality of exhausts in the first instance as from exhausts that are damaged, and thus made inefficient, either by use or deliberately by the person who uses the motor cycle. We should be realistic, and understand that young people are likely to damage exhausts to get the extra noise that adds to the excitement and draws attention, which is attractive to teenagers.
I am not saying that I ever damaged the exhaust of my Triumph Tiger 100, but my brother ran an Enfield down the road with no exhaust at all — which seems to me considerably worse—with dramatic effect. Young people do that sort of thing for short periods. They usually grow out of it, but it is upsetting to others who have to suffer the noise and who may not want to have their attention drawn to a teenager while they are sunbathing or watching the television.
I was struck by the contents of a letter from R. W. Osborne to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Mr. Osborne argued convincingly about the way in which the Government should approach the matter. He said that, given that the test certification process is involved, it might he useful for the Government to consider the case for the police or test certificate officers to allow perhaps 14 days for a person to put right a non-dangerous fault. That suggestion has some attractions, although I do not claim to have thought it out carefully.
Mr. Osborne has given the matter some thought and his suggestion could be useful in dealing with this difficult problem and in ensuring that the police are not seen as taking people through the courts unnecessarily. After all, the aim of the process is to ensure that a fault causing noise, or other non-dangerous fault, is repaired effectively.
I was encouraged to hear that the British motor cycle industry is doing rather better than it was, and in particular that Triumph motor cycles are being produced again. British motor cycle exports, even to Japan, are improving, and we must not do anything to damage the industry's chances. The Government already have a reputation for destroying manufacturing industry, and it would be sad if they placed further burdens on the industry that prevented British machines competing effectively with Japanese models. Japanese models tend to be quieter, not least because of their multiple piston systems, but as a result of that they cause more atmospheric pollution. While legislating to inhibit noise pollution by British


motor cycles, we should not forget other aspects of pollution caused by imported motor cycles. The subject clearly needs careful consideration.
I have the impression that the problem arises mainly from relatively small motor cycles. Large motor cycles seem to be used predominantly on main roads. Small motor cycles which have had the baffles of their exhausts spiked can be intensely annoying and extremely noisy. As I understand it, that is the sort of issue that the hon. Member for Christchurch seeks to address in the Bill. It is the noise factor that has attracted all-party support. It is the annoying relatively low capacity motor cycles that make such a noise and can be so incredibly frustrating that have caused so much trouble in city and country areas alike. It is on that basis that the Opposition—

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who speaks on behalf of the official Opposition. I shall not go over his initial points, but Charlie's Cars is certainly providing my constituents with a service that they could not have enjoyed before the recent legislation. Does the Labour party accept, however, that pollution by noise and diesel fumes, especially from coaches, is a major problem in our cities and that if the industry will not deal with the problem the Government will have to legislate?

Mr. Soley: I thought that that was implicit in my comments, but I will make it explicit. Yes, we agree. The whole pollution issue, both atmospheric and noise pollution, is extremely important particularly in city areas. I was saying that putting noise limits on British bikes must be seen in the context of the need to deal with atmospheric pollution by foreign bikes competing in British markets. My point was not that we should reduce the noise limits but that we should set higher standards for imported bikes in terms of atmospheric pollution. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

Mr. Adley: My point goes wider than motor cycles. Coaches, especially, are causing a major problem.

Mr. Soley: I am happy to confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, the Opposition have expressed concern that the Government are not moving fast enough with regard to lead in petrol, which is another aspect of the same problem.
There is overall support for the Bill, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Christchurch has given. It is important to stress that the Bill is not an anti-bike measure. I believe that there is merit in examining ways to ensure that standards are maintained in terms of noise and non-dangerous repairs without necessarily dragging people through the courts. The Minister may find it useful to consider that at a later stage. There is no doubt that motor cycle noise is a great nuisance in some areas and must be dealt with. On that basis, we welcome the Bill.

The Parliamentary-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): First, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for your kind remarks about my incapacity, which I hope will not be too obvious. If I lock up, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) will nip out and fetch the sticks that I have been using for the past few days.
During most of the debate we were honoured by the presence of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who would no doubt strongly confirm the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the effect of noise pollution on those who are hard of hearing. As my hon. Friend said, extraneous noise complicates life enormously for those with weak hearing. As I have responsibility for the transport needs of the handicapped and disabled, and as in my previous position at the Department of Employment I had responsibility for work opportunities for the handicapped and disabled, I should point out that my hon. Friend's Bill, which has all-party support, will benefit not just those who are fit and have good hearing but those who are less fit, hard of hearing or blind. As my hon. Friend said, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association also supports the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) echoed in his welcome contribution on this point, all-party support for a measure of this kind is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has also secured the support of the whole motor-cycling community, both the trade and the riders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) said in her valued intervention, motor cyclists themselves are interested in protecting the good name of motor cycling. As I said when we launched our consultation paper, "Safer Motorcycling", the Government, and indeed the whole House, wish to preserve and enhance the good aspects of motor cycling while cutting out the bad. I am grateful to all those who responded to that consultation paper, which was concerned mainly with safety, but we are also concerned to reduce environmental pollution of all kinds and to cut out unnecessary pollution.
Noise pollution carries further than anything else, at least in the short term. One may argue about the effects of burning coal and about acid rain which carries across continents, but the noise from a motor cycle can be louder than an aeroplane. Most of the Department of Transport is based in the south tower at Marsham street, just across Horseferry road from Westminster hospital. The motor cycle noise that I hear from the 12th floor can thus be heard by all the patients and staff in Westminster hospital. The same applies to old people's homes, and so on, throughout the community. People who need and deserve less noise are annoyed and irritated by motor cycle noise and the most vulnerable are disturbed the most. I believe that there have been very few representations against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch told me earlier today that he had had one letter from a member of the Motorcycle Action Group but that he had dealt with it by telling the writer that the group supported the Bill.

Mr. Adley: Perhaps I should clarify that. The Motorcycle Action Group, which is represented on the National Motorcyle Council, is one of the supporters of the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley: No doubt a few traders will hod that when the Bill becomes law they will be selling fewer noisy motor cycle exhausts, but they should not complain about that as the profit margin on quiet, legal exhaust systems should be roughly the same as on noisy, illegal ones.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that all Governments should campaign against the deliberate creation of pollution for profit, whether by selling noisy


motor cycle exhausts or by operating coaches and trying to beat the competition regardless of the cost to the community?

Mr. Bottomley: That may he so, but, at the risk of falling out with my hon. Friend, I should point out, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith knows, that when we put forward a safeguarding proposal for WEIR — the Western Environment Improvement Route — along the railway line at Earl's Court, the letters that we received expressed as much concern about increases in the number of trains as about road traffic. I suspect, therefore, that a debate on the relative merits of trains and coaches would produce arguments on both sides. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy was at the Department of the Environment, he said that he thought that the way to flush out the environmentalists would be to put forward a proposal to close the M1 because nobody liked roads and to build a new railway line across southern England to see how many people would favour the activities of a modern Brunel in their area.

Mr. Adley: The road transport industry and those selling seats for hire and reward on the roads do not pay the track costs and other expenses, which amount to £600 million per year, for the railways. Sir Robert Reid once commented that if he parked a train illegally at Piccadilly Circus he would soon have somebody down on his neck. If my hon. Friend the Minister seriously intends to raise debate — I hope that he will — about the relative environmental advantages of road and rail, he must start from a fair comparison. I look forward to discussing the subject at great length on that basis.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not today, please.

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that Sir Robert Reid welcomes the feeder traffic that he receives through coaches and buses. Many people arrive at railway stations on roads, some on foot, some on bicycles, and some on motor cycles— if that keeps me in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some arrive by car, but many arrive on buses and coaches.

Mr. Adley: I did not mention buses.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is trying to put me off.
If you do not mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can return for a moment to the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. He talked about destroying manufacturing industry. It is probably worth noting that, with the changes in productivity in this country, many people in manufacturing wish that more things were produced in this country or that they could buy more of their components here. If the hon. Gentleman listened to senior people in Vauxhall and Ford, he would probably hear them saying things that were not terribly polite about their predecessors for sourcing so much outside Great Britain. In fact, the proportion of cars assembled in this country has increased from 41 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the past year or so. That is good news for Britain.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the British motor cycle industry. I should declare an interest because I own some shares in NVT, which was a great part of the British motor cycle industry. I should also declare that I bought them well before I became a Member of this House. They have been valueless for most of the time that I have been in the House. I do not intend to sell them while I am the Minister

responsible for roads and motor cycling. I hope that I shall not discover that another Minister has been involved in buying or selling such shares.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the health of the motor cycle manufacturing industry. The reproduction and replica motor cycles that are made in this country. as well as some of the new, modern advanced ones that are made for use by the police services, are greatly welcomed by those who have the interests of the British motor cycle manufacturing industry at heart.
In the main, we are talking about the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. However, the hon. Member for Hammersmith also referred to rural bus services. My hon. Friend referred in an intervention to Charlie's Cars. I am sure that such a service would not have been possible without deregulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West was invited to inaugurate the Godalming town bus — I am sorry, I mean the Haslemere town bus. I referred to Godalming because the county council discovered that, because the subsidy required was so low, instead of being able to bring in two new bus services, it could add a third, which, I believe, included Godalming.
Generally, there has been benefit from deregulation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hammersmith and some of his hon. Friends who have doubts would like to consider how soon the benefits of deregulation could be extended so that in our own constituencies in London we can have more services going into areas where, up to now, there have not been any services—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister's comments do not have much to do with motor cycle noise.

Mr. Bottomley: That depends on whether one thinks a motor cycle is more or less noisy than a minibus service or a taxi service. We may discover that some people are giving up their motor cycles and using the new forms of public transport.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: indicated assent.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Member supports that, arid I am most grateful.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In my constituency it has been suggested to me that many of the new minibus services that have been introduced since deregulation have resulted in people not having to use motor cycles. That has met with considerable support from those who worry about the safety of people on motor cycles and those who worry about the noise and the other pollution caused by motor cycles.

Mr. Kirkwood: That was better.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is not supposed to introduce divisions between hon. Members of the same party.
To return to the content of the Bill and avoid further problems with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that the hon. Member for Hammersmith also referred to the different types of exhaust systems for motor cycles. He referred to original equipment, to equipment that is modified in ownership and to replacement equipment that is deliberately more noisy than the original equipment, which must meet the standards. He was right in saying that—there is no problem with original equipment.
The Government support the Bill and welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in bringing it forward. It will greatly help our efforts to reduce motor cycle noise and should encourage the motor cycle trade to ensure that it supplies replacement exhausts and silencers to enable every model to meet the noise limits set in European Community directives. For most of the machines that are currently on the road, that means compliance with the limits set in directive 78/1015/EEC. From 1990, new motor cycles and, therefore, replacement exhausts for those machines must comply with a new directive, 87/56/EEC, which was agreed at the Environmental Council last November. Now that that directive has been adopted by the Council, we intend to prepare draft amendments to the construction and use regulations to make the new limits applicable at the due dates to new machines registered in Britain.
I can assure the House that those improvements can be made by European motor cycle manufacturers whose Governments are party to the agreement, with improvements to detailed design and key components, and to the silencers and the sources of mechanical noise. The new limits and the dates of their implementation reflect the policy to which the Government are now committed, that is, to make motor cycle manufacturers improve their products and keep in step with the progress that is being made by car, lorry and bus manufacturers to reduce noise at source. It is one thing to ensure that new motor cycles are quiet, but we also need to ensure that they remain that way in use.
My hon. Friend's Bill will help to ensure that, because it strikes at important aspects of the problem of replacement silencers. We should be able to require replacement silencer manufacturers and importers to demonstrate that their products do all that they are supposed to do. If my hon. Friend succeeds in cutting down the nuisance caused by inadequate silencers, a great many people will have good cause to be grateful to him.
The question of enforcement has been raised. When I went on a short tour of south-east Asia last year, I visited a vehicle testing station in Singapore where a whole group—I am not sure of the collective term for young motor cyclists and their motor cycles—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: A roar.

Mr. Bottomley: Yes. A roar of motor cycles and motor cyclists was gathered in that vehicle testing station. They were the previous night's collection of motor cyclists who had wrongly drawn attention to themselves through their noisy behaviour. They were summoned to have their vehicles tested. That caused a degree of aggravation for the motor cyclists and provided a low-cost opportunity to test whether their cycles met the various requirements, including the noise requirements. It may be that such an approach could be considered by police forces in this country. Perhaps it could be tied in with trading standards officers or with the vehicle examiners in the Department of Transport. I am not saying that that is what must be done, but it would be a way of trying to scoop up people and have a low-cost but effective way of checking that motor cycles do not make too much noise.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith referred to Mr. Osborne, who had been in correspondence with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on a

defective vehicle rectification scheme, under which, instead of immediate prosecution, people would be required to put their vehicle in good order and to demonstrate that they had done so. That idea is being promoted by several police services. People will be able to see how effective it is and whether it can be extended. No one wants to see unnecessary prosecutions. There are various ways of avoiding prosecutions. One is to reduce the number of offenders. That is the key point which, in a low-cost way, goes to the source of much of the obnoxious, unnecessary and illegal noise made by motor cycles.
Having done as much as possible on that, there is also the question of what happens when one finds a person who has a vehicle component which does not meet the construction and use regulations. Perhaps it once did but has been modified by age and use or deliberately to produce excessive noise. It seems that vehicle rectification would work as well as it does on other vehicles which are found to be unsafe, although not to the extent that they need to be immediately prohibited. Making a vehicle meet legal requirements is better than tying up the time of courts and the police officer involved. Mr. Osborne's suggesting is being used and I am sure that people will consider taking it further.
A question arose on consultation and how we might proceed. Obviously I do not need to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make and lay regulations. We consult the trading standards officers and Customs and Excise, and everyone is agreed that there will be no problems over powers. My hon. Friend wanted that assurance.
My hon. Friend also asked about finance. Obviously trading standards officers would like to have more funds. Most people in the public service would like to have more resources and most would also like to have more pay. All hon. Members will understand that general plea. It is worth saying that trading standards officers already visit motor cycle accessory shops in the course of their duties. The additional task of checking that exhaust systems meet the law will be fairly marginal, and I do not think that it will cause an enormous problem.
My hon. Friend asked about publicity. There is substantial interest in and support for the Bill in the trade and motor cycling community which will do all it can to publicise the Bill. The motor cycle industry is well organised—both importers and retailers. Together with wholesalers, they will ensure that the information is passed on.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of a general election in the next 13 months. He has wisely enlisted the interest of Lord Bottomley of Middlesbrough. I am sure that their Lordships will not find the disguise so complete that they think I have moved up to join them. It may be worth saying that Arthur Bottomley, as most of us know him, and I have been confused on several occasions. I normally accept the invitations I receive that are meant for him and he normally turns down the ones he receives which are meant for me. The classic case was when Conservative central office asked him to open the Conservative fete at Thurrock. He said he did not want to and was then told that Mrs. Thatcher paid great attention to who opened Conservative garden fetes in Thurrock and that, by the way, there was a charity marathon and would he run the last five miles with the runners as it would do his future in the party a great deal of good. He then


explained that he had been a Privy Councillor and a Labour Cabinet Minister, that he had no intention of running five yards for the Conservative party, and that perhaps the office should approach me.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister is doing well — 21 minutes so far.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that I should spend a little more time on perhaps the most expensive general election promise ever made. Perhaps we can return to that on some other occasion.

Mr. McNamara: A fulfilled promise, unlike the Government's promise on the National Health Service.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman also refers to the decision announced yesterday to meet in full the review body's recommendation on nurses' pay, and I am grateful to him for welcoming what the Government have done.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch took us through the main features of the Bill and I intended to make a public apology to him again. In Committee he spoke about the Dykes Act and today we were grateful to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) present for the debate. In Committee my hon. Friend said in relation to the Dykes Act that we
took the first hesitant steps in coming to terms with the severe, anti-social nuisances which can be caused by manifestation of the internal combustion engine."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 11 March 1987; c. 19.]
That was a series of polysyllabic words which drew a gasp from me which was perhaps rightly interpreted by Hansard as me saying, "Who wrote that'?" I was not in any way suggesting that that had not been written by my hon. Friend.
The reference to Hansard reminds me that Peter Walker of Hansard invited me to go on Budget day to Ripley to meet the Wey valley advanced motor cyclists, a group within the Institute of Advanced Motorists which has provided great support for the Bill. Throughout the country active motorists anxious to promote all that is good about motor cycling and to reduce all that is bad have supported the Bill. It is to be welcomed that throughout the land responsible motorists have lent that support.
We can go into other issues about motor cycling on other occasions, but perhaps it would not be out of order for me to say that I welcome the reduction in the casualty rate. Obviously the number of casualties is related to the number of people who motor cycle. Yesterday we announced that motor cycle casualties, including moped and scooter users, had fallen by 8 per cent. because of a reduction in motor cycling. That has reduced the actual casualty rate by 3 per cent., which is welcome. What is not welcome is the fact that there were some 750 deaths, 15,000 people were seriously injured and there were 36,000 slight injuries. That makes a total of those involved in accidents of 52,000. We need to promote the interests of motor cyclists and motor cycling, and the Bill does so in reducing noise pollution.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have helped to bring the Bill to this stage. The Government hope that it will receive its Third Reading today, move to another place and, if possible, be enacted. In that way, the industry will be prevented from being tempted to fit illegal exhausts, we shall find life quieter and more pleasant, and people will be able to take up motor cycling without damaging the interests of others.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third tune, and passed.

Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Churchill: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to thank my supporters in all quarters of the House for their help, above all, in passing the Bill through the House without amendment. I should particularly like to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and all the officials in his Department for the tremendous help that they have afforded me as a Back-Bench Member in preparing the Bill and piloting it through Parliament.
The Bill will confer clear benefits on all members of the armed forces who in future suffer injury or death in peacetime in the course of their duty, as a result of negligence by another. Once the Bill is passed, they will be on an equal footing with civilians and will no longer be discriminated against in terms of compensation for themselves or their dependants.
However, even after the Bill, for at least one category of injury or death proper compensation will not be available. I should like to address this point before the Bill moves to another place. This case is one of pure accident, where no one could be held to have been negligent and where the individual concerned was not regarded as having caused or contributed to his injuries.
One such case would be that of Sergeant-Major Ken Yeoman, who was a senior non-commissioned officer and an instructor with the Red Devils at Aldershot. He is known to several hon. Members because he was one of the instructors for the group which came here to do a charity jump some five or six years ago in aid of the Airey Neave Memorial Trust and cancer research.
Shortly after that, the parachute of a soldier who was taking part in a jump failed to open. Sergeant-Major Yeoman, who jumped from the aircraft in the same stick of parachutists, immediately realised the problem and, regardless of his own safety, grabbed his colleague and held on to him with all his strength. By his exemplary bravery he saved his comrade's life but, sadly. at terrible cost to himself. As a result of the injuries that he received on landing, Sergeant-Major Yeoman was medically discharged from the Army and will be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Some months ago, we had the pleasure of entertaining him at the House.
According to the legal advice that I have received, although I am no lawyer, even if the Bill had been enacted at the time of that incident, Sergeant-Major Yeoman would not have qualified for compensation because his injuries were not incurred through negligence but, it would be claimed, voluntarily in that he could simply have allowed his comrade to fall to his death while landing safely himself. However, his colleague, whose injuries were only minor, may have been able to sue the packer or manufacturer of the parachute for negligence and obtain compensation under the terms of this legislation.
That case outlines a clear gap that will exist in the framework of compensation which is available to members of the armed forces, even after the passage of the Bill. In those circumstances I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been able in his handling of the Bill and helpful to the Committee and myself in assisting its

passage through the House, to ensure that full consideration is given to the possibility of providing an insurance policy which would cover all members of the armed forces and guarantee full and comparable compensation in cases such as the one that I have described where negligence cannot be proved. The number of such cases in any year would be tiny, so the cost of the insurance policy to the Ministry of Defence would be small.
I am sure that the Minister and the House would agree that it is unacceptable that members of the armed forces who risk or sacrifice their lives to save those of their comrades should be placed at a serious disadvantage in terms of compensation. Such courage, self-sacrifice and comradeship are qualities that are to be found in a greater measure in members of Britain's armed forces than in any others. Their qualities are of inestimable value in battle and can be decisive in the outcome, as we saw in the brilliant exploits of 2 Para at Goose Green against an enemy three times its number which was dug into defensive positions. Such qualities go to the heart of the high calibre and morale of Britian's armed forces and are to be encouraged. I trust that the Minister will find a way of doing that.
In Committee, the case for retrospection was discussed at some length. I am the first to acknowledge the debt that is owed to those outside the House who have campaigned for so long to secure the abolition of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act. I am delighted that their efforts are on their way to a victorious conclusion. But I also recognise the bitter disappointment that there must inevitably be among what has become known as the section 10 victims and their dependants that this Bill is not to be—in my view, cannot be— retrospective.
It is true that Parliament has traditionally resisted retrospection but it is also true, as was so forcibly argued by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), that there have been several notable exceptions to that rule. Those exceptions almost invariably have been to confer a retrospective benefit rather than, as would be the case if this Bill were to be made retrospective, to impose a retrospective liability. For this reason, I accept that the Bill cannot be retrospective.
An example is the hypothetical case of a corporal who 30 years ago may have caused or contributed to the death of a comrade through an act of negligence. Would it be right, even in the interests of providing better compensation for the victim or his family, that after so many years that corporal should face the ordeal of having the whole matter reopened and find that he now has a legal liability for his actions of 30 years ago when none existed at the time of the incident?
I make no apology for repeating once again that the Government. having acknowledged the injustice of section 10 as it has operated in recent years, by their decision to abolish it have, by the same token, recognised that members of the armed forces killed or injured in peacetime in recent years have received inadequate compensation compared to what would be available to their civilian counterparts. In so doing, the Government have made an unanswerable case for reviewing those past cases and ensuring fair levels of compensation. This is why I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to explore with his colleagues the possibility of establishing a compensation fund of at least £100 million, as was done some 10 years ago in the case of the victims of pneumoconiosis in the


mining industry. Such a fund would be administered by a tribunal to which those who have been inadequately compensated, or who in some cases have received no compensation at all, may apply for an ex gratia payment.
I cannot fail to refer to the largest category of those who have received no or inadequate compensation — the victims of Britain's nuclear test programme. The Minister assured us in Committee that the report of the National Radiological Protection Board, which was due by the end of last year, will definitely be available before the end of this year. In the event that the report shows, as many of us are convinced it will show, that among the 20,000 British service men who took part in those test programmes there is a significantly higher than average incidence of cancer, leukaemia and other radiologically induced diseases, I find it inconceivable that the Government would not wish to move swiftly to provide full and fair compensation for those whose health has been destroyed in the course of their service to their country.
An assurance by the Government in this regard would be most welcome, especially by those families who in recent years and to this day have had, or are having, to endure the horror of seeing a husband or a father become a living skeleton and die in terrible pain and distress. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to consider seriously the obligations that we have to this category of British ex-service men. If I have been able to play some small part in remedying a serious injustice to our service men in the years ahead, I will be only too delighted.
I pass this Bill, I hope with the approval of the House, on to their Lordships' House and into the capable hands of my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I am highly confident that he will carry the Bill forward to the statute book. I am confident that in the years ahead the Bill will provide the proper levels of compensation that all of us, in all quarters of this House, wish to see for those who serve their country so selflessly and well.

12 noon

Mr. Jack Ashley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on his admirable efforts on behalf of the Bill and on his successful navigation of the Bill through the shoals and reefs of the House of Commons.
This Bill is a notable landmark for the armed forces and sweeps away the injustice and discrimination against them. It gives historic new rights to the armed forces to sue for negligence. That means that service men and women who risk or give their lives in our defence will exercise the same rights as the rest of society — the right to deter negligence and the right to take legal action if negligence occurs that results in their disability.
If I may enter a caveat, I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Davyhulme did not pay adequate tribute to the campaigners for the Bill. Quite honestly, we would not have this Bill without the efforts of Mrs. Carol Mills of the Section Ten Abolition Group, Ken McGinley and Sheila Grey of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, Tom Armstrong of the British Atomic Veterans Association and all their colleagues. This Bill is the result of their persistent efforts. I believe that many of us would concede that, without their efforts, we would not have the Bill. Time and again the Ministry of Defence has opposed the proposals put forward by the campaigners —

Members of this House and people outside. Thus the Bill is a tribute to their efforts as well as the efforts of the hen. Member for Davyhulme.
For some years those campaigners faced a lengthy and determined rearguard action by the Ministry of Defence, but they prevailed because they had justice on their side. However, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have always given us an extremely fair hearing. I am delighted at the decision that they have made, and I warmly welcome and support the Bill.
The hon. Member for Davyhulmc has mentioned retrospection. I must tell the Minister that I feel passionately angry that those service men and women already disabled by negligence are excluded from the Bill. It is wrong that they should be excluded; they should have been provided for. The hon. Member for Davyhulme was right to refer to retrospection because, by excluding such people, we are perpetuating an injustice. We simply cannot allow them to be excluded from this Bill; something must be done for them.
I am extremely glad that present members of the armed services are to have new rights, but we cannot exclude those people who have been disabled as a result of negligence and who are now suffering. Something must be done for the atom test veterans and all those people already disabled.
The Bill is a base on which we intend to build to provide rights for people, including atom test veterans, who are already disabled. I see this Bill as a launch pad from which we intend to campaign for justice for those service men and women already disabled. That battle will be fought in this House, in the House of Lords and outside Parliament. It is a battle that will be won.
I commend the Bill to the House. I am delighted with the new rights, but I give clear warning that this is only the beginning of a new campaign to secure these rights for service men and women who are already disabled. That campaign begins today and will be continued until it is successful.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). I was fortunate enough to support him in a private Member's Bill last year when he was equally lucky in the ballot but his Bill did not reach the statute book. On this occasion my hon. Friend had the wisdom and good fortune to pick an issue on which there is all-party agreement to redress a grievance which came into being out of good will and good intentions in 1947. It is clear that the intention then was not to discriminate against service men. Conditions and circumstances were different then. We hope that this measure will lead to the further diminution of Crown immunity in many other settings.
I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on all that he has done. :I certainly endorse his remarks about the Section Ten Abolition Group. I became involved through a constituent in Haslemere who approached me two years ago. Since then I have followed the matter closely and I attended the launching of the Section Ten Abolition Group at a meeting in the House of Commons. I took up my constituent's case with the Minister and his predecessor.


It is broadly accepted that there is no justification for service men and women being treated differently from their civilian counterparts who risk their lives or are killed.
I hope that the Bill will not lead to many court cases. I cannot help but observe that there seems to be no human adversity or misery that does not benefit the legal profession. There can be no justification for continuing the previous regime.
I warmly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said about the establishment of a special fund. I accept the argument about retrospection. A retrospective benefit is one thing but to impose liabilities on another service man retrospectively could be damaging and lead to great difficulties.
My constituent to whom I have referred has, I am sad to say, died. His family tell me that his wish was that present and future service men should not suffer as he did.
The battle has been well fought. A special fund administered by a tribunal to ensure fair treatment to the injured seems satisfactory and reasonable.
I wish the Bill well. I hope that it manages to complete the course speedily, in view of other matters on the horizon. I congratulate once more my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, the Minister and all those who have helped to bring to an end an unjustifiable injustice.

Sir Antony Buck: I represent a garrison town and I am chairman of my party's defence committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). It is pleasant to see the House working well across party lines in such a matter. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of helping further categories of people.
I do not object to retrospective legislation that confers a benefit. If a way can be devised to help those who have been injured in the past, without infringing the principle that it should not create retrospective obligations or liabilities, there can be no objection to retrospective legislation. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Members of the Opposition who have brought forward the Bill, and I hope that it will have a speedy passage through its remaining stages.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on bringing before the House a Bill that rights a serious grievance that has existed for too long.
I should declare an interest, in that I am a solicitor. When I first qualified, one of my first major jobs was representing a service man who had received serious spinal injuries in a car accident while being driven by a colleague in the forces. It was only the fact that the accident occurred while they were off duty that entitled my client to what were then record damages. It has always seemed to me utterly anomalous that, if the same accident, in the same circumstances, with the same people, had happened while they they were on duty, the man would have had no access to the courts for damages of that kind.
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his skill in steering the Bill thus far. As a solicitor, however, I think that the skill that he has demonstrated has been marred by

his off-the-cuff comments about lawyers who operate in these areas. Although I have not practised in this area for a long time, I can assure him that, although it is easy for politicians and others to get cheap laughs from attacking lawyers, in the main, lawyers who operate in this field are highly motivated towards their clients, often make lifelong friends of them and want to achieve the best for them.
If some cases look expensive and go to court, that is because the law was ill-defined and contained too many anomalies. The overwhelming majority of cases, in which matters are relatively straightfoward, are settled by the parties long before a court hearing. I hope that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity of withdrawing his rather intemperate comments. I fully share his hope that few cases will go to court if the Bill is adequately drafted.

Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for allowing me the opportunity, not to withdraw my previous remarks, but to make it clear that it was certainly not my intention that they should be taken to apply to the legal profession in general. I was expressing my anger about the fact that, in the context of the way in which it was intended that compensation should operate under the Bill, half of the £20 million to be set aside by the Government was to be swallowed up in legal fees. I believed that that was not the wish of the House, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister took the matter away and returned to tell the Committee that he had halved the prospective legal bill. If my remarks were somewhat intemperate, at least they had a worthwhile result.

Mr. Batiste: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has put his comments in context. The substantial legal costs that are often incurred in civil injury claims arise from the fact that many insurance companies make realistic offers later rather than earlier; so the Government will easily be able to slash their legal bill dramatically if they make realistic offers and settlements sooner, rather than waiting until they are on the doorstep of the court — something that happens all too often nowadays.
I wish to refer briefly to three matters on which I should like assurances in the hope that we can remove possible areas of ambiguity so that when claims arise there will be clear guidance from the Minister on the attitude that the Government will take. On Second Reading and subsequently, there were commitments from the Minister that the Crown will stand behind all service personnel who are sued in claims for negligence. We must consider carefully the scope of that, and I hope that we shall have an assurance that the Crown will stand by personnel, even if they are acting outside the scope of their orders and not operating within the authority delegated to them by the Crown. I should also like some guidance on what would happen in the increasingly frequent undertaking of joint exercises with other military forces, where the negligence that results in injury to the service man may, at least in part, be caused by service men of forces other than those of Britain.
The second area in which I seek clarification is the commitment made on Second Reading that the right to sue for negligence and to obtain damages would be in addition to the no-fault payments that are made already in the services. Am I right in understanding that there will be a global sum that will be the higher of the two and that the lower will be offset against it'? Some clarification is needed on that score.
The third area is that of evidence. The preparation of any claim for negligence depends greatly upon the disclosure of evidence by the party in whose hands that evidence rests. It is clear that it will be the Crown that will hold the evidence in the majority of cases, and I am not clear how the production of such evidence will interact with, for example, official secrets legislation and the attitude of the Crown in saying that certain evidence and documents will not be disclosed because they involve the national interest. The "national interest" is a broad term that can be extended to include almost anything. There will clearly be much litigation if documents are not produced that are necessary to establish in reality the evidence of negligence or otherwise.
We must consider also the vexed question of retrospection. When we remedy a grievance from a certain date, the contrast between those who benefit from the new legislation and those who have suffered but cannot benefit from it will become increasingly severe and increasingly more pointed as the years pass. I understand the thought processes that mean that there is no provision for retrospection built into the Bill, but there is nothing to prevent the Government from dealing with cases in the past on an ex gratia basis once the new principle of law has been established. I hope that the Government will address themselves to doing precisely that.
I conclude by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme on introducing the Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through its remaining stages in Parliament.

Mr. John Powley: I hope that the House will forgive me if I repeat a statement which has been made by every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate; it would be remiss of me if I were not to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on the expeditious way in which he has conducted the Bill through the House. I hope that it will pass through the other Chamber with equal speed and success.
The House will be aware that I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading. I recognised that it was a piece of legislation that was required urgently to put right a deficiency within the armed forces. I welcomed it also in a personal sense because my youngest son is a regular member of the armed forces. His engagement in the Royal Air Force is in the safety equipment section, which deals with items such as parachutes, life rafts and other pieces of safety equipment that the armed forces operate so efficiently. Since my son's engagement, I have become more conscious of the possibility, remote though it may be, of an accident taking place, sometimes not by negligence but by pure chance. Negligence can occur that is not deliberate, and I have become more conscious of that because of my son's involvement in a safety equipment section. It has heightened my awareness of Parliament's responsibility to ensure that those who suffer because of some form of negligence, whether deliberate—I am sure it would not be deliberate — or accidental, should be properly compensated. That is why I welcomed the Second Reading and my membership of the Standing Committee.
I was torn in half over the matter of retrospection. I sincerely say to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that I wanted to support the views that he put forward in Standing Committee, but it was with a

heavy heart that, having thought deeply and seriously about the issues, I could not support him, and I apologise for that. I hope that he will understand the concern that one must also have for the implications of such a measure.
I was extremely relieved to hear that the Minister, and, I am sure, his successors, whoever they may be, will review old cases with characteristic sympathy.
I remind the House that my constituency of Norwich, South is in the heart of East Anglia. That area has strong and long associations with the armed forces. East Anglia still has many American and British air force bases. We also have strong Army attachments. Many of my constituents and others in Norfolk and other counties of East Anglia have served the armed forces with distinction. They have suffered the trials and tribulations of a world war and have suffered because of past negligence. I do not know of any particular cases with which my constituents consider that I could help, but when the Bill is on the statute book I shall gladly help. The Ministry of Defence is sympathetic to my constituents' problems.
I raised on Second Reading the matter of legal costs. I am encouraged to know that expenditure on legal costs will be examined carefully. I hope that the money that is saved by doing so will be used to enhance the compensation that is paid to those who have suffered damage and grievance during past service under the Crown. With great respect to the legal profession — I hold it in high esteem—I would prefer that money to go to proper compensation to alleviate the problems that have occurred in the past, rather than to go to the legal profession. I am sure that there is plenty of other litigation with which members of the legal profession can occupy their minds.
It has been a pleasure to have served the Committee and to have made a modest contribution to the Bill. It has been a pleasure to play a part in what will be a sensible, worthwhile, and welcome Act of Parliament.

Mr. John Ryman: I support the Bill and warmly join in the congratulations that have been proffered. I have a particular interest in the Bill, as a recent constituency case suffered from this specific problem.
I should like to make two points for consideration by the Minister. As a lawyer, I disclose an interest in this matter and know the cumbersome and lengthy procedure that inevitably takes place in civil litigation for personal injuries. This Bill seeks to simplify the procedures and I hope that it will soon be passed into law.
Will there be provision for any interim payments pending the completion of litigation? Experience has shown that insurance companies play cat and mouse with plaintiffs. As one hon. Member said, insurance companies make inadequate offers in the first place, and from the date of the issue of the writ, through the lengthy proceedings of pleadings and interlocutory processes, discovery, interrogatories and so on, until the case is listed in the courts, one, two or even three years may elapse.
In view of the gravity of the cases that will be brought under this scheme, do the Government have in mind interim payments to the injured service man pending the hearing of the full case? I do not trust insurance companies. Whatever sum is set aside, and however it is divided between the legal costs and the sum available for the payment of damages to the injured service man, the insurance companies will look at it purely as a commercial


proposition and will only make available sufficient money on a payment into court basis pending the hearing of the full case.
Payments into court are influenced by considerations of legal costs and not by sympathy for the plaintiff. Do the Government envisage an interim payment scheme for the service man, so that pending the issue of the writ and the ultimate adjudication by the tribunal he will have a substantial sum available?
Perhaps my second point should be linked with civil litigation and personal injury cases generally. Many years ago a Royal Commission headed by an eminent Law Lord recommended no-fault insurance compensation. That has been debated in the House and in the House of Lords on many occasions. There is all-party agreement that it should be brought in, thereby in effect abolishing much of this litigation by making it unnecessary. Does the Minister envisage that this type of litigation enabling a cause of action to be brought by a service man will come within the framework of machinery where no-fault compensation can be considered?
Where a service man has been injured in the circumstances outlined by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and an acceptance of liability is made by the Ministry of Defence, why is there a need to go through the whole machinery of litigation and the cat and mouse game played by the insurance companies? These two points, interim payments and no-fault compensation, are worth considering.

Sir Ian Percival: I am glad to have the opportunity to say a brief word in congratulating and thanking all concerned. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for promoting that Bill, and the Government for the attitude that they have adopted towards it. I congratulate the House on being, it would seem, about to do something useful, albeit within a limited sphere.
I was just in time to hear two comments about legal matters. In connection with legal expenses, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will bear out that it was the lawyers who first expressed alarm at the proportion of money that it was said would go on legal expenses. We have no desire whatever to see an undue proportion go in that way. Our desire is the same as that of every other Member of the House, to see that those who are covered by the Bill get adequate and good compensation.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman), I should have thought that most of the cases would be for personal injuries and would be covered by order 29 of the rules of the Supreme Court, which allows the making of interim payments. My purpose is simply to echo what so many others have said. I am glad to add yet another voice, as I believe that this is such a good little measure. It will fill a gap about which many of us have felt very strongly. I congratulate everyone concerned — the promoter, the Government and the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The lawyers seem to he making confessions about their

interests. Let me make a confession as someone who once taught law. When I was teaching tort, there was always a little subsection in the problem in which I included one party as a serving soldier to see if the students remembered another lecture that I had given on the immunity of the Crown. My notes — if they still exist — will have to be amended. However, I trust that if we have a Labour Government they will never have to be used.
I welcome the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) with two and a half cheers, not with three, for reasons that I shall give shortly. As a House, we should join my right hon. Friend for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in congratulating the Section Ten Abolition Group on its tremendous work in raising the issue. The group must have mixed feelings about seeing the issue coming to fruition. Its members felt the necessity to remedy the anomaly based on their own unhappy experiences. However, in remedying the issue for the future, the Bill does not go any way to meet the sufferings endured by their friends or relatives, which led to the campaign.
With regard to nuclear veterans, we have had an undertaking that the results of the survey will be announced by the end of the year. However, it is, after all, only a statistical survey. Some of us are still at a loss to understand why there must be a statistical survey, as that will take a long time to monitor and to reach conclusions about. We are not considering individual sufferers or complainants; we are merely considering a statistical exercise.
I have given the Bill only two and a half cheers because of its lack of retrospection. There is undoubtedly a difficulty with a Bill that might impose a liability on a past or current service man for something which he thought had gone from his life, an action which he may have regretted and which he felt had been dealt with, but a retrospective benefit would be provided for those service men who had suffered.
I hope that two things will arise. First, we have heard the example of the pneumoconiosis fund and the way in which it has worked retrospectively. I hope that for those who have suffered as a result of being present at the atomic weapons tests a similar fund will be established to meet their particular problems. In Committee the Minister gave an undertaking that the Ministry would be reviewing old cases. It would be helpful to the House if we knew how many cases are involved and what length of time the Ministry considers will be necessary for this purpose. There is still much unhappiness, shared by the nation as a whole — another example is the pensions given to widows of former service men — about the glaring anomalies and stark unfairness between what went before and the position after the House has remedied the grievance.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Davyhulme for introducing the Bill. Although one would have liked the Ministry to have introduced it, the hon. Gentleman dealt with it skilfully, and his relations with hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, were exemplary, He gave great consideration to representations made by outside interest groups and deserves, and must have, the congratulations of the House. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will hold out some hope to former members of the armed forces who have been invalided out and who have suffered


as a result of negligence, and will go some way to meet the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House with regard to re-examining old cases and the possibility of providing improved compensation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): On behalf of the Government, I welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and strongly support its speedy passage through the House. I hope that it will have similar all-party support and a speedy passage through the other place.
The purpose of the Bill has been spelled out clearly. It gives a right to service men and women — a right that has been denied them for the past 40 years — to sue other service men and women and to show the courts that there has been negligence. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), I confirm that the Crown will stand behind those service men and women who are sued where their actions were carried out in the course of their service duties.
I am pleased that the Bill has received all-party support. Although I have only limited experience of parliamentary proceedings, I believe that this shows Parliament at its best. I pay tribute to the sustained campaign of lobby groups, such as the Section Ten Abolition Group, and Members of this House and of the other place, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme. It is also important to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues. They should not be portrayed as having been brought kicking and screaming to the Dispatch Box to support the Bill. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) did not portray them in that way, but for the record I emphasise that the Ministry of Defence has been in no way obstructive. Ministry officials carried out a detailed study of the pros and cons and the implications of repeal of or amendments to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and only after that analysis had been made could Ministers consider the issue and reach a decision. As shown by the introduction of the ex-gratia payments scheme from 8 December last year, Ministers have contributed to progress in this area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme and the supporters named on the front of the Bill have played their part in facilitating its speedy passage.

Mr. Ashley: I am anxious to avoid a clash, but I must set the record straight. On occasions such as this, we tend to use soothing syrup and to obfuscate the issues. The fact is that the Government and the Ministry of Defence have consistently refused to give way on this subject. Pressure was applied time and again and is recorded in parliamentary answers and in letters to me in which the Ministry has repeatedly said, "No. We cannot give these rights to service men and women." There is absolutely no doubt about that. I do not want to bicker, but that is how the record stands. Even with the efforts of its sponsors, the Bill would never have seen the light of day without a sustained campaign by the men and women who have been disabled and who are now excluded from the Bill. That is quite wrong, and there is no justification for the Minister's statement.

Mr. Freeman: I think that I am agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman. I paid tribute to those who have drawn

the attention of the House and successive Governments to the need for reform. I cannot speak for previous Administrations, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this Government have acted. We have given strong support to the Bill and have played our part in introducing the ex gratia scheme from the date of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet asked a number of specific legal questions. He asked whether the Crown would stand behind defendants who were acting outside their orders or the normal scope of their duties. We will stand behind a service man or woman who is sued only if he or she was acting in the course of his or her normal duties. If that is not the case, it will certainly be open to the service man or woman who has been wronged to sue, but he or she must sue directly the service man or woman who he or she claims has acted in an unjust, incorrect or negligent manner. It is only fair for the employer — in this case the Ministry of Defence — to extend his financial guarantee in circumstances where the service man, NCO, or officer was acting in the normal course of his duty and in the lawful fulfilment of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet asked about joint exercises with a foreign army. He asked what would happen if a service man in a foreign army—perhaps one of our NATO allies — was involved in an accident during a joint exercise. I assure my hon. Friend that we already have adequate arrangements for handling such cases under the international status of forces agreements with which he will be familiar. Those arrangements will continue after the Bill is enacted. I assure my hon. Friend that, in the few instances where I have been involved in dealing with the Governments of our NATO allies, I have always found those Governments co-operative and anxious to resolve the legal issues arising from a claim as speedily as possible. I am sure that that will continue to be the case.

Mr. Powley: Not being a legal person, I am ignorant of the measures referred to relating to exercises with the armed forces of another country. Will the Minister explain? If a German service man involved in a joint NATO exercise with the British Army was negligent and so caused injury to a British service man, would that British service man be entitled to sue the German soldier or army, and would the German army be responsible for the compensation?

Mr. Freeman: The service man would take the matter up through the Ministry of Defence and we would take it up with the armed forces of the country concerned through the status of forces agreement. It would clearly be invidious if in a joint exercise a British service man had the right to sue a British NCO without having the same financial remedy in relation to the armed forces of other countries. Certainly, therefore, we will make the correct representations on behalf of the British service man concerned. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet was concerned about whether evidence would be withheld for reasons of national security, and about the problems which could arise in the submission of evidence to the courts. This should not cause any difficulties in civil litigation. If considerations of national security arise in relation to evidence, arrangements might be devised to ensure that,


where appropriate, liability is admitted by the Crown and discussions are allowed to continue on the quantum of damages. If my hon. Friend is not satisfied with that reply, perhaps he will put down a question or write to me, when I shall be delighted to deal with his concerns in greater detail.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) raised two interesting points about interim payments and about the no-fault system. We have every intention of operating an interim payment system where circumstances warrant it, which would clearly include cases in which liability is admitted but where there might be some further discussion. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of settlement out of court, where there might inevitably be delay in settling the final amount.
I confirm that the Ministry will use the interim payment system, where appropriate, in a positive and constructive way and not in an obstructive way. Commanding officers in the British armed forces have been operating the system since 8 December last. When potential cases arise in which service men or women claim that acts of negligence have been done to them by others in the services, commanding officers know that they must advice wronged service men or women of their legal rights and advise them to obtain proper advice, not from the Ministry of Defence, the Army legal service or the corresponding services in the other two arms, but from civilian lawyers.
If the circumstances so warrant, a soldier will be entitled to receive the same help as any other citizen from the legal aid system. I repeat the commitment that I gave in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme that the Ministry of Defence will not seek to obstruct the progress of cases by ranging a great battery of lawyers against perhaps just one plaintiff. We shall also seek to reach settlements promptly and, if possible, out of court. That is clearly in the best interests of all concerned.
The hon. Member for Blyth Valley also raised the subject of the no-fault system. In a sense, we have had such a system for a considerable number of years. The hon. Gentleman may not be familiar with the details, but under the present system, which the Bill seeks in a sense to modify, whosoever fault an accident is, there is a no-fault payment by the Ministry of Defence and the DHSS. They are both lump sums and annual payments, they are largely tax-free and the annual payments are largely indexed to the retail price index. I believe that this was the point of concern in relation to Sergeant-Major Yeoman, but I shall return to that in a moment.
We already have a no-fault system. Criticism has been made, especially by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on the adequacy of those no-fault payments. My hon. Friend's Bill would give service men the additional right to receive an automatic payment from the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Services and, in addition, the right to sue in the courts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet asked whether there was true additionality. On Second Reading, I confirmed that the amount of court damages awarded, or the amount of the settlement reached out of court, would be in addition to the no-fault payments, subject in certain cases to an abatement by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health and Social Security, of the recurring annual amounts. That is in accord with practice in the

private sector. However, the damages that the service men would seek in court, or seek to reach in an out-of-court settlement, would be additional. That is the value of the additional right that has been given to service men. They can go to court and say, "In addition to those automatic payments, I want a further sum to right the wrong that has been done to me in terms of the loss of my future employment prospects, and the damage done to my enjoyment of life."

Mr. Ryman: rose—

Mr. Freeman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, if I can finish my sentence.
In 1947, when that legislation was introduced, the then Administration thought that the automatic no-fault payment system was broadly equivalent, in financial terms, to the amounts that the courts would have awarded in the absence of those payments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) has correctly pointed out, during the past 40 years, court-awarded damages have risen substantially so that service men and, indeed, those in the private sector, if they go to court in cases such as those covered by my hon. Friend's Bill, will receive sums in addition to those that they would have received under the no-fault system.

Mr. Ryman: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with my two specific points on interim payments and no fault compensation. Will he confirm that service men who avail themselves of the right that will be conferred by this legislation will be entitled to interest on their claims from the date of the cause of action?

Mr. Freeman: I assume that that matter would normally be for the court to decide. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will permit me to reflect on that question, and to write to him with a more considered judgment.
The object of my hon. Friend's Bill is to give a service man the same right that he or any other citizen has in relation to his employer or to the other employees of that employer and to sue for acts of negligence. The same principles will apply to service men in settling damages, and to the Ministry of Defence in determining the amount of damages offered out of court in a private settlement, as would apply in the private sector.

Mr. Batiste: I seek only a moment's clarification on the question of additionality. So far as I am aware, if one goes to court with a civil claim, one makes a claim for compensation for an amount that one can prove, with evidence, that one has lost. One must set against that the receipts that one has received by way of litigation. It is important on this novel principle to know how the no-fault payment would interrelate with that calculation by the court. At first sight, it seems that the court, in assessing civil compensation, would say that there had been a payment by way of mitigation by the no-fault payment. It is important that that interface is clearly defined, so that the Government's intention of giving genuine additionality is carried through.

Mr. Freeman: I entirely accept the spirit of my hon. Friend's intervention. I should like to point out to him that my hon. Friend's Bill seeks to put service men on exactly the same footing as civil servants. A civil servant already has the ability to sue the Ministry of Defence. Someone who is not in uniform can sue us. That person could sue the Ministry of Defence, which is not covered by the


crown Proceedings Act 1947, and others in the employ of the Ministry of Defence. The same principles that apply to a civil servant will also apply to a service man. The abatement that might apply to the annual payments made by the MOD and the DHSS — both Departments are involved — will not put service men in a different position from anyone else who has the right to sue the MOD or any other Department.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South referred to the central issue of retrospection and the creation of a special fund. All hon. Members will concede that our debates on the Bill have had the value of clarifying the difference between conferring a benefit and conferring a right. The Bill confers a right and consequentially a financial benefit. Many hon. Members have talked about the need to create a system of additional benefits and I shall return to that.
Service men are being put in the same position as any other civilian, and may sue another service man. The Crown will stand behind the service man being sued so long as he acted lawfully in accordance with orders in the course of his duties. That right cannot be retrospective, for the reasons which my hon. Friend gave. He is absolutely correct. We cannot retrospectively confer a right and therefore place a liability on the shoulders of somebody else, irrespective of whether the Crown stands behind the service man sued retrospectively. That is a basic principle of our rule of law and I accept that argument.

Mr. Ashley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He fails to draw the distinction between conferring a financial benefit, through whatever mechanism he cares to suggest, paid by the MOD directly to those who have suffered and——

Mr. Ashley: Does the Minister accept that there are hundreds of cases of retrospective legislation dating from the 16th century conferring retrospective benefits and retrospective rights on people? We are seeking to give retrospective rights to people who will benefit from them. The Minister has already stated clearly that the MOD will pay the costs incurred by the person responsible for negligence, so the whole purpose of retrospection is to benefit the disabled person. The payment will be made by the Ministry, so no burden will be placed on the individual who was responsible for the negligence. There are hundreds of precedents over the past 400 years to that effect. What is wrong with that?

Mr. Freeman: With respect, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I admit I am not a lawyer, but I cannot think of legislation that has come before the House, certainly during this Parliament, which confers a retrospective right on individuals to sue third parties. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members cited the Local Government Finance Bill as a parallel case of the Government seeking retrospective rights. I argued that it was not, and clearly the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
Before I come to the separate issue of creating retrospective benefit, I must stress that the Bill confers a right to sue third parties which cannot be made

retrospective. The procedure and mechanics are quite clear. One seeks legal advice and goes to court. As the employer, we have said that we will stand behind those who are sued when they have been acting in the normal course of their lawful duties. I invite the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South to give me an example of legislation which retrospectively gives the individual the right to sue others. I cannot think of such an example.

Mr. Ashley: I apologise for intervening again, but as I have been invited by the Minister, my response is this. I have researched this carefully and, historically, there is no direct retrospective legislation which confers the right to sue. I concede that point. However, there is retrospective legislation which provides benefits for individuals. The Minister should use that precedent to provide those rights for service men who have been disabled. That is my simple proposition.

Mr. Freeman: Finally, I think that we are in agreement. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has conceded that he cannot cite an example which retrospectively grants a right to individuals to sue third parties. However, the right hon. Gentleman has raised a perfectly valid point—I am attempting to deal with that substantive point, which was also made by several right hon. and hon. Members—that some mechanism should be found to make direct payments from the public purse to those who have suffered. I think that I am encapsulating the right hon. Gentleman's point clearly enough.
It is important to recognise that, whatever the criticisms of the present scheme, we have an existing compensation scheme which, as I explained earlier, is automatic and no-fault. In Committee I gave certain commitments, and I repeat the key commitment that I gave—that we will continually review and ensure that the armed forces pension scheme, and the other schemes that the Ministry of Defence operates which involve payments to those who are invalided out of service or who die in service, are adequate in comparison with other public departments and the private sector. That is a most important point. I t is a separate point from the subject of the Bill, as the House has agreed. It is a high priority to ensure that the terms and conditions of those schemes are reviewed and uprated where appropriate.
I shall now deal with the specific suggestion of the creation of a fund similar to the pneumoconiosis fund. As I said in Committee, I do not think that one can cite that fund as a parallel case or justification for the kind of special fund or source of funds that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme has cited. That is because pneumoconiosis is akin to an industrial disease, which, sadly, has affected many coal miners. It is no way similar to the aggregation of cases that would be brought after section 10 is abolished, which are individual cases where: wrongs have been done. Each one would be different. Compensation for the effects of an industrial disease is wholly different.
I appreciate the sentiments that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme has in his heart in suggesting that fund, but the general commitment that I want to give him is that the right way to proceed is through modification and amendment to the existing system of benefits, which compensates those who are injured and those who sadly die and their dependants. He is quite right to call for a review of that system. I can give him an assurance that that is precisely what the Ministry of Defence will do.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about reviewing old cases. For the sake of clarity, I repeat what I said in Committee because there might be some confusion in his mind, for which I apologise if I created it. The benefits paid to those who suffered before 8 December 1986 are governed fairly specifically. There is very little leeway for varying the lump sum or annual payments paid by the Ministry of Defence and the DHSS. The amount paid is very often subject to medical judgment and not ministerial or political judgment. Where there is variation, it is because someone's medical condition has deteriorated since the event.
I did not want to give the hon. Gentleman the impression that I or any other Minister could review a case and change the amount of disability payments. He may have had in mind the redress of grievance procedure, about which I know he has tabled a number of questions in the past few weeks. I make it plain that the redress of grievance procedure and the criteria used within the Ministry of Defence for making payments to those who claim that they have suffered grievance at the hands of the armed forces have not changed and will not change as a result of the Bill. The procedure is a mechanism, under which several cases are still being reviewed, for sympathetically considering all the facts in particular cases. I did not want to give the hon. Gentleman in Committee or give him now any hope that the Bill provides a wholesale remedy to the cases that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have cited.

Mr. McNamara: I do not wish to prolong the matter, but we also spoke about people who may be injured as a result of nuclear tests.

Mr. Freeman: I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will deal with that after dealing with ex-Sergeant-Major Yeoman's case. In common with all hon. Members, I pay tribute to his bravery in saving the life of another member of the Parachute Regiment and putting himself not only then but for the rest of his natural life in pain and injury. As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme said, it was an example of the professionalism of the British armed forces that we have come to expect but perhaps take too much for granted, although we admire it.
If I have written down correctly what my hon. Friend said, it was that proper compensation is not yet available. I assume he meant additional compensation over and above amounts that ex-Sergeant-Major Yeoman has received and is receiving. It is not a case of ex-Sergeant-Major Yeoman receiving nothing from the Ministry of Defence. I think he was referring to additional damages or compensation sought by someone who would not fall into the category of those who might benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Churchill: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. My words were "full and comparable compensation", by which I meant comparable to what we are providing for in the context of this Bill.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to refer to the fact that the armed forces pension scheme and the DHSS scheme makes payments irrespective of whose fault a particular accident was, or of the self-sacrifice or bravery of any individual in harming

himself to save others. Mr. Yeoman has been in contact with the Ministry of Defence, not with me personally, and I give my hon. Friend a commitment that following this debate I will look at that case and review it most carefully.
I understand that Mr. Yeoman has been advised that the financial value of the benefits that he has and is likely to receive under the present scheme is roughly equivalent to the amount of court-awarded damages that might be payable to him if those injuries had been caused in a negligent fashion.
That is my immediate advice, but I will certainly examine Mr. Yeoman's case with great care and will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme. Since this Bill will not deal with that specific case, my hon. Friend has suggested an insurance policy so that the Ministry of Defence, as the employer, might somehow insure against these particular sad and unfortunate examples of injury. In that way we might provide some additional sums. I shall certainly consider that suggestion.
I wish to deal briefly with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) concerning the financial and public service manpower effects of the Bill. I respectfully remind the House that, on the front page of the Bill before us, the paragraph "Financial and public service manpower effects of the Bill" has been amended. The House should be aware that, in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme sought to insert a fresh draft to reduce the estimate of costs after 10 years of the operation of the scheme from approximately £20 million to £13 million. My hon. Friend did this after he had raised proper questions about the level of the legal costs of Ministry of Defence advisers and the cost of reimbursement to successful litigants. The sum of £13 million, as the so-called steady state cost of his reform, is still an estimate. Although we have had four months experience of the operation of the ex gratia scheme, it is far too early to suggest the likely level of the results of that scheme. I believe that these estimates are, in a preliminary sense, on the high side. Nevertheless, it is far too early to forecast with any accuracy the number of claims and the level of settlements. However, I hope that the amendment is helpful.
In conclusion, I wish to turn to the question put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, on nuclear tests. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically why there had been a delay in the expected receipt of the report from the National Radiological Protection Board. I confirm again, as I have done two or three times, that the report will he received before the end of this calendar year. I shall explain why there has been a delay, to allay any anxiety on the hon. Gentleman's part. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and the House wish to return to this matter in some detail at the appropriate time.
The report has been delayed because the board has been comparing the incidence of cancer and mortality among those service men or participants in the tests against a controlled group of the civilian population of the approximate age and sex distribution, but who were not present at the tests. I am sure that the House will readily appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to track down the medical records of the last few members of the sample. The board has said that it is having difficulties in obtaining medical records. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the cancer registration system is, I understand, a comparatively recent reform in our national health affairs.
It is proving a little difficult to complete the sample to an acceptable level. However, Ministers have made it plain to the board that we expect it to redouble its efforts so that the report can be completed and the Government and the House can consider the results. It is much better to obtain the facts before considering the appropriateness of any remedy.
For the sake of clarity, I confirm again that neither protected nor unprotected men were exposed to the hazardous effects of nuclear explosions during the United Kingdom's nuclear weapon test programme. That would have been in complete contravention of the safety policy and philosophy for all our nuclear weapons tests. That is a statement which my predecessors made. I repeat it and suggest that perhaps the right time to return to the issue will be when we have the results of the independent survey.
I welcome the Bill and hope that it has a speedy passage. I have visited units of the British armed forces in this country and abroad since the announcement and I know that the Bill has been greeted with wide acclamation by all ranks. It has had, and will have, no material effect on training standards or the adequacy of training. The Bill is widely welcomed by those who believe that professional soldiers, sailors and airmen should have the same rights as their civilian colleagues who work for the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Bill receives a speedy passage in the other place.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Access to Personal Files Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause

APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The Secretary of State may by order add to the tables of authorities and of accessible information specified in Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I have no wish to delay the House. The new clause is in the nature of a promissory note. I shall not repeat the arguments that were advanced in Committee, but there is widespread all-party support in the House for providing more access to the information held about individuals. If ever there was a time to put an idea into practice, this is it.
The new clause provides new powers for the Minister to make regulations on those matters that were in the Bill as originally drafted. These include benefits and other records, employment records, bank, building society and credit card records, as well as immigration records. It puts down a marker to give the Government of the day the necessary authority to introduce regulations after proper consultation, without the need for another Bill.
We are worried about the Government's opposition to the inclusion in the Bill of references to medical records. There is widespread and overwhelming support in the medical profession for such a provision. The Minister told us in Committee that he believed it best for progress to be made on a non-statutory basis. He said that talks would be held with the medical profession in an attempt to achieve that. I hope that progress is made on a non-statutory basis.
The new clause provides a backstop in case it is not possible to reach agreement, so that the Government of the day can decide whether it is right to take hold of the issue and put it on a statutory basis.
It is unusual in such circumstances for bodies such as the Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Midwives, the Health Visitors Association, the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the College of Health, MINI) and the Patients Association to reach a common view about the need for the citizen and patient to have access to medical records — with safeguards. I hope that the Minister, who heard these matters discussed in Committee, will at least see the sense of what the new clause would achieve.
It is no criticism of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is the true father of the Bill, to say that it is the way of the world for private Member's Bills to be mauled about, but the hon. Gentleman wants to leave a small footprint on the sand of history. The Bill will take a small shuffle, rather than a small step, forward. I want the inister to accept that this


is the start, and by no means the end, of a process. He should accept the idea of a provision that would make that clear in the Bill.
Our national passion for secrecy puzzles me and many others. In large areas of our lives, we feel it right to deny citizens access to information. The records containing such information come into being when we fall into the cradle, and they are still there when we slip, protesting, into the grave.
At the same time, the people who are generally held in high esteem in the land, and to whom we entrust our secrets—secrets that strike at the heart of our national security—far too often breach that trust. It is perverse to put so much trust in those people and yet be so fearful about giving ordinary citizens the right to examine the records that are kept about them. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to our suggestion and will put down a marker for the future. The Bill is not the end of a process: it is merely the beginning.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): The Government have already set a precedent for access to personal information in the form of the Data Protection Act 1984, for whose passage I was responsible. I do not want to make a party political speech, but those who have been prone to criticise the Government for not moving fast enough on the subject of manual records should be reminded that a Labour Government had ample opportunity to introduce a Bill similar to the Data Protection Act but took no steps to do so. The leader of one of the alliance parties was a prominent member of that Labour Government, but was a tacit supporter of the decision to make no progress in giving people greater access to their personal records. Therefore, it ill behoves Opposition Members to complain about progress being too slow now.
The Conservative Government took the crucial step and gave the citizen access to records about himself that were held on computer. Today we congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on having gone a long way towards putting on the statute book a Bill that extends the right of access to manual records.
On Second Reading I made it clear that the Government did not need persuading of the benefits that can accrue to an individual if he can obtain access to records of personal information. We are also conscious, as any prudent Government must be, of the fact that benefits of that kind have implications for resources of manpower and money. As they say in Lancashire, "You can't get summat for nowt." Extending the right of access to personal information costs money and resources. Let no one be fooled by propaganda that suggests otherwise. If we are extending the right of personal access, we are making a conscious choice to spend resources in that area and to deprive other areas of those resources.
At the beginning of the exercise — the hon. Gentleman could not have been more helpful and could not have been more ready to recognise the difficulty of the Government—we had to be careful about putting new burdens on employers, for example. One becomes sick and tired of those who voice concern about unemployment and yet are prepared to place new burdens on private employers that might have the effect of increasing

unemployment. As a Government we had to consider the matter in the round, being anxious to extend the rights of individuals to access to their personal records, but being mindful all the time that too swift progress could impose intolerable burdens. There is no doubt that the practicalities of granting access to manual records are of a different scale from those involved in granting access to computerised records.
In reaching our agreement with the hon. Gentleman we came to the conclusion that the authorities and classes of information to be made accessible should be as they now appear in the schedules. I made it clear on Second Reading that the Government believed that the best approach would be to wait to gain some experience of the operation of the subject access provisions in the Data Protection Act 1984, which come into force in November, before we consider giving wide rights of access to manual records. It was for this reason that we reached agreement with the promoter and sponsors that the scope of the Bill should be narrowed.
In effect, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was asking, "What is wrong with putting into the Bill an order-making power that does not have to be used? A decision could be made later." Perhaps the machinery within the Bill is appropriate for the sort of records that are mentioned in the schedule, but not the preferred machinery to provide an extension of personal access to other records. I do not know about that, but what is certain is that it seems odd to rush ahead and provide a power to increase the scope of the Bill before we have even seen whether the machinery in the Data Protection Act is the right sort, and before we have experimented to ascertain whether the machinery in the Bill to deal with manual records is the right sort.
The hon. Member for Erdington made an important point about medical records. We found in our useful discussions in Committee that there emerged clear concern about medical records. Many people would like to see progress made in this area. It was the view of Ministers responsible for health policy and myself that greater progress was likely to be achieved on providing access to personal information in medical records — there is no disagreement between the Government and the promoter and sponsors about the desirability of that happening—by following the voluntary rather than the statutory route.
I think that I was able to give an undertaking in Committee that was of comfort to those who have expressed a wish to see swift progress made towards personal access to medical records. I repeat the undertaking that I gave on behalf of my colleagues with responsibilities for health
that they will enter into talks with the medical profession at an early stage with a view to achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records further on a non-statutory basis."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 1 April 1987; c. 60.]
The undertaking will open the way to important further progress. The principle of access to personal information having been established in respect of computerised data by the Data Protection Act 1984 and in respect of manual records by the Bill is important. There is a need to see how it works out in practice.
1.30 pm
Extension to other areas is best left, the Government believe, for consideration when we have digested what we have done and after due consideration by Parliament.


From the tone of his speech, I know that the hon. Member for Erdington does not propose to press the new clause to a Division but I thank him and his colleagues for having tabled it. It is important that the matter should be ventilated on the Floor of the House, so that the public may know of our concern.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

ACCESS REGULATIONS

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
This is a probing amendment. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to the Minister that the sponsors of the Bill wanted to push the Government a bit further on some of the detail of the commitments that were made by the Government in Standing Committee. The House should and will know, since it has now had an opportunity to study the reused format of the new Bill, that there have been substantial departures from the Bill that was given a Second Reading in the House. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has already adverted to that fact. We have gone from a Bill that was essentially a substantive measure of 16 clauses and one schedule to a Bill that essentially contains three clauses — although there are five, including the financial provisions and the definitions—and two schedules.
The change from a substantive Bill to an enabling Bill leaves a lot of power in the Government's hands in terms of the subsequent regulations that the new Bill will spawn. The Minister adverted to that point. It is important for the sponsors of the Bill to try to stiffen the Government's commitment as much as possible. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I had an interesting experience when researching the relative meanings of the words "may" and "shall". In my experience, statutes that are passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done are usually expressed in permissive language. I am only a provincial Scottish solicitor, but I have had some experience in such matters. Prima facie, the words "shall be lawful" or "such and such a thing may be done" import a discretion and must be construed as discretionary unless there be anything in the subject matter to which they are applied or in any other part of the statute to show that they are meant to be imperative. That is clearly the position.
I refer the Minister to a passage in the seventh edition of "Craies on Statute Law". The Department should ponder that passage in future. At page 285, under the heading,"'May' sometimes equivalent to 'shall''', it states:
It is, however, a well-recognised canon of construction, as Lord Cairns said in Julius v. Bishop of Oxford"—
I do not think that that is a reference to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), who unfortunately is not able to be with us today—
that 'where a power is deposited with a public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied by the legislature of the conditions upon which they are entitled to call for its exercise, that power ought to be exercised and the court will require it to be exercised.'''

That is the end of the quote, but I shall continue the reference to Craies's text because it goes on to quote what Lord Blackburn said. He said:
The enabling words are construed as compulsory whenever the object of the power is to effectuate a legal right.
In some circumstances therefore it could be argued, and no doubt lawyers will argue, that the use of the word "may" in the context of this Bill would have to be legally considered as "shall". I do concede, however, that in the argument that we had in Standing Committee on this issue, the Minister of State won by a long head in terms of the number of statutes that he produced that use the word "may". I was able to come up with only a sprinkling, but it was a significant sprinkling, of statutes that use the word "shall", and my point was perfectly well made.
I understand, however, that, if an obligation is placed on the Government and in addition they are tied to a time limit and a process of consultation, they could get into an untenable legal position. If they tie themselves to a mandatory period and come across unforeseen obstacles in consultation, they may not be able to comply with their own legislation. That would be absurd. The point discussed in Standing Committee is still valid and needs to be given proper consideration.
As I say, the reason for tabling the amendment is to show that the Bill has undergone major changes. It is no longer a substantive Bill. It started as an ambitious measure, containing provisions to protect third parties, to prevent excessive retrospection and to allow retrospection only in exceptional special cases. It set out carefully worked out procedures and time limits, dealt with exemptions, rights of redress, and appeal procedures arid had a wide scope in its schedule. It was so clearly drawn and had been so well worked out not just by me but by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and others before me that it drew an accolade from the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) who said that not for a long time had he read such a clearly written Bill.
I hope that, in the course of making the regulations that will be produced by this new enabling Bill, the Minister of State will be able to draw on some of the work carried out in drafting the provisions of the original Bill. I am sure that he will understand if in the course of debate on this amendment we seek to firm up what is left. I am sure that he will also understand when I say that this is not the Bill that the sponsors wanted. It is now restricted to local authorities and some cynics—I may not number myself among them — will say that central Government are looking after their own interests and piling the hassle factor on to local authorities. That is certainly true in terms of the restrictions in the Bill as it stands.
The Minister of State will understand why we repeat and read into the record again our frustrations about the fact that he said that the Government's objection to this measure was an objection on grounds not of principle but of expediency, time and money. Of course those are important factors, but the sponsors of the Bill believe that an opportunity to make more substantial progress has been missed. More than any other single area, that applies in the area of health.
We noticed carefully the Minister's statement about the Government's position on medical records. That is welcome as far as it goes, but he will understand that those of us who sponsored the Bill do not feel under an obligation not to knock on his door in the future. Perhaps


that will not happen in this Parliament, but in the near future we shall certainly return to a front-line attack. Let no one make any mistake about this, that there is a feeling in Parliament, at least in this Parliament — I cannot speak for Parliaments that may be elected in future — that medical records should be embraced within the scope of a measure of this kind.
I was interested to hear the Minister of State claim that the Government have made some progress. That is true. However, that argument can be stood on its head to some extent. The Government made progress in 1980 with the provision of access to education records by taking the power in primary legislation to allow access to educational files. That happened seven years ago, but nothing has happened since. Although it is true that the Government have, to their credit, passed the Data Protection Act 1984, the Minister of State's claim that he is making all possible progress at the best possible speed must be scrutinised very closely. I am sure that the Minister of State will understand that the sponsors of the Bill feel that a valuable parliamentary opportunity has been missed.
I want to consider the importance of the words "may" and "shall" to the undertakings given by the Government in Committee which are certainly welcome as far as they go. In Committee, the Minister of State gave an undertaking that the Government would seek to make regulations in housing, education and social work in Scotland by the end of 1988. He said that the Government would seek to use their best endeavours to do that. He also said that comparable provisions will be made for Northern Ireland, although for technical reasons that must be achieved by an Order in Council and not through the mechanism in this Bill.
The Minister of State gave the same undertaking for England and Wales with respect to education and social work, but insisted on a further qualification for housing for England and Wales. That particular aspect of housing has specific reference and importance to the mandatory versus the permissive provision of the amendment.
An undertaking was given in Committee on 1 April by the Minister of State. With reference to housing records in England and Wales he said:
this Government will use their best endeavours to make regulations by the end of 1988.
He then said:
but because of the obligation to consult and the need to make it plain that these consultations will not be mere window dressing, the Department''—
of the Environment—
wishes me to say that the Government cannot say with 100 per cent. certainty that they will make regulations. However, I can assure the Committee that the likelihood of our failing to make any regulations at all … is remote." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 1 April 1987; c. 59.]
We subsequently queried the detail of that commitment. The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction kindly responded to a letter that I sent to him. I should quote two or three sentences from that letter for the information of the House. Referring to the Government's commitment, the Minister said:
I am writing to let you know that we are fully committed to making all possible progress with the necessary regulations once your Bill is enacted. There will be no back-sliding on our part as you seem to fear.
But an essential part of that progress towards a binding and effective scheme of access is, as you and your co-sponsors recognised, consultation with the local authority associations.

This we shall do at the earliest practicable opportunity. We will seek their views on the operational implications of the regulations for their members.
He concluded his letter by stating:
But it follows that we have to put in a reservation to cover the possibility, however remote, that the Associations might convince us that, even after amendment, the proposed regulations were impracticable. If that were to happen, no Secretary of State could, in good faith, bring such regulations to the House.
I fully understand the Minister of State's difficulty— he is acting as an agent of the Department of the Environment — but the clear implication is that we are talking not about a potential delay in introducing regulations if there are unforeseen difficulties with the consultations, but about regulations becoming impossible to introduce. I do not understand why the Department contemplates such difficulties in relation to England and Wales. The Minister of State said that the Scottish Office had told him that in all three areas in Scotland, including housing, there was no reason why an unqualified commitment could not be given. What is good enough for the Department north of the border should be good enough for the Department in London.
As the Minister of State will know, the practice of granting unfettered access is used increasingly by housing authorities. I have a list, which is not up to date, of more than a dozen local authorities which already allow unfettered access to housing records. They include The Wrekin, South Somerset, Lewisham, Barnet, Birmingham, Brent, Copeland and Ealing. Those authorities are successfully practising what the Department of the Environement is running scared of—if my interpretation of the information that it has given the Home Office is correct.
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have expressed warm support for the principle and general approach of the Bill. They may have some difficulties with the nitty-gritty of the detail, but all the local authority associations are already on board. I do not foresee major impediments that would make regulations impossible to introduce. I understand that they may not measure up to the Minister of State's timetable of 12 months—all reasonable people would accept that—but I do not understand why the Department contemplates that the regulations will become impossible to introduce.
Perhaps the most important point is that the Department says that there are difficulties with the consultation process. But that process started on 6 December 1984. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) sought the views of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on ways in which public sector tenants could have better access to information on them held in their landlords' files. The Minister replied:
My Department has today written to the local authority associations, to organisations representing tenants' interests, and to other interested bodies, to seek their views about how such information can be made more readily available. Public sector tenants sometimes believe that their landlords' files contain misleading personal information. In this area, and subject to proper safeguards, they ought to be able to check that mistakes are not being made. A copy of the consultation letter is in the Library." — [Official Report, 6 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 238.]


The letter, dated 6 December 1984, was sent to local authorities. It advocated the extension of the rights of access by tenants to the personal files held on them by their landlords.
Taking all those factors together, the Bill's sponsors are right to be suspicious of the Department's approach. I do not hold that against the Home Office, because I understand the Minister's difficulty, but we are disappointed that we cannot have more reassurance from the Department of the Environment about the Government's position on housing records.
Clause 3(3) states that the regulations may make different provision for different authorities. The local authorities have said that it would be helpful if the Government made it clear that that can be used only to set up different regulations to apply to different types of authority, such as social work authorities as opposed to housing authorities, and should not be used to apply different regulations within the same class of authorities—for example, housing or social work authorities. I am not making that very clear. I think that the fears are unfounded, but it would help if the Government could say that they intended to set up different classes of records applying to different types of department and not to individual departments within the same class of authority.
The Minister of State may view the amendment prima facie as an unfriendly act. I hope that he will understand that it is motivated by a genuine desire on the part of the sponsors of the Bill to put it on record that further refinement and clarification of the Government's position is needed. The amendment is also intended to make it clear that, if the Government do not use their best endeavours to stick to the timetable that they have given us, a whole series of people, with me at the head, will be knocking on their door and asking why.

Mr. Waddington: I acknowledge the fact that in Committee the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) discussed precedents for the use of "shall" instead of "may". He has nothing to apologise for. He did interesting research and turned up with precedents that few of us realised existed, but he will agree with me that precedents for the use of "shall" are pretty thin on the ground.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important matter of housing records. Our undertaking about the making of regulations in respect of access to housing records in England and Wales differs from the unconditional guarantee in respect of Scotland, and each Department has to make its own judgment on the practical issues that arise. The Department of the Environment examined the possibility — albeit extremely remote — of proposed regulations going out for consultation and being found to be irrevocably flawed. The Department of the Environment was concerned, too, about burdens upon local authorities. Bearing in mind its heavy responsibilities in such matters, it did not feel that it could give absolute guarantees in advance of consultations with the local authority associations. As I said in Committee, the Department of the Environment was anxious to make it absolutely plain that, when it said that it would consult, it meant it, and that the consultations, as I said in Committee, would not he mere window dressing.
These are difficult judgments for individual Departments to make. I must take responsibility for the form of the undertaking, but the hon. Gentleman has

acknowledged that various Departments were involved in the exercise. I was the Minister responsible for gathering together the various strands that emerged from the Departments.
My remarks about the Department of the Environment do not mean that that Department would be deterred from making regulations simply because of opposition from local authorities, even if such opposition arose. The Department would step back from doing that only if it was wholly convinced, following consultations, that there was no way of making practicable regulations. That, indeed, is a remote possibility.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction wrote to him because he was anxious to reassure him that the Department is fully committed to making all possible progress with the necessary regulations once the Bill is enacted.
In practical terms, the amendment would place on the Secretary of State a duty to make regulations even if the regulations were unworkable. Clause 3(5) provides that regulations are to be made subject to affirmative resolution, so if either House rejected the regulations the Secretary of State would be in breach of his statutory duty through no fault of his own. That would be an impossible situation and entirely justifies sticking to the word "may" and eschewing the word "shall" in a case of this nature.
With regard to clause 3(3), I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of the Environment, the DHSS and the Scottish Office have no intention whatever of treating differently individual authorities within any one class of authority as listed in the schedule. To make it absolutely plain, that means that all Housing Act authorities in England and Wales will be treated in precisely the same way, so I hope that the worries expressed in some quarters are fully dispelled. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for raising the matter again on Report. I hope that I have satisfied him that "may" and not "shall" is the right word.

Mr. Corbett: The Committee ended up accepting that "may" meant "shall" except when it meant "may" and the Minister persuaded the Committee of the Government's view that with regard to education records the Education Act 1980 provided sufficient powers. I should like to raise a further point in that regard. If the Minister cannot answer it today, perhaps he will be kind enough to do so at a later stage.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and I received an intriguing letter from the Universities Central Council on Admissions, known to generations of parents as UCCA, expressing the view that it would be regrettable if the Bill allowed access to the reports prepared by head teachers and used by those making university selections. In an astonishing letter, Mr. Philip Oakley, general secretary of UCCA, stated:
Most university selectors when consulted on this matter said they would have grave reservations about the substitution of open testimonials for confidential reports.
No one was talking about testimonials, open or closed. We were merely hoping that the judgments made about admissions to universities would be factually based opinions and statements of fact. I appreciate that, within that, assessments must inevitably be made, but supporters of the Bill maintain that such judgments and assessments


must be based on something more substantial than hunches, so that people can see why a particular conclusion has been reached.
The letter continues:
They fear that such testimonials would lose the benefit of the frank, careful, sympathetic advice on each candidate based on detailed knowledge of his or her school record".
That is an astonishing statement. I do not necessarily complain about UCCA, but I must point out that in trying to find out the address of that establishment I noticed from the letter that it operated from behind a box number, which spoke volumes about the view that it was expressing. To be fair, UCCA explained in a subsequent letter that it used different box numbers for different parts of its operation because it helped with the handling of mail. Superficially, however, it seemed highly appropriate in the light of the views that it had expressed.
I should be grateful if the Minister would bear that in mind, because under the original phrasing of the Bill it does not necessarily appear that those records would come within its provisions. If someone is between educational establishments, for example, finishing at a comprehensive school and applying for a place at a university or a college, that person is not, at that stage, in full-time education, in that he or she has finished at one place and has not received a decision whether he or she can go on to university or college. It seems to me — I hope that I carry the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire with me — that it would be quite ludicrous if such records, prepared by headmasters, were excluded from the regulations that will be made in due course. It would be even better if, when preparing those reports to back up applications for university places, headmasters or senior school staff discussed them with the people concerned, before sending off the records.

2 pm

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, but I cannot give him an answer today. However, I shall ensure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is drawn to the point that he has made and that he receives a reply and complete answer to it as soon as possible.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister of State will allow me to be presumptuous enough to suggest it, I think that he should go back to the Department of the Environment and ask what progress has been made on the consultations that were started some years ago. I make no complaint about the difficulties that the Minister is in, acting as he is as an agent for the Department of Employment, but he will not be privy to the detailed negotiations that have been going on, or that may have been going on. My information is that that process was started some years ago. I should have expected——

Mr. Waddington: rose——

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall ask the Minister another question, if he could deal with it at the same time. Some progress could reasonably have been expected by now.
While I am still on my feet, the other matter with which I am sure the Minister will be able to help me is this. I completely forgot to explain to the House that we had decided to take education completely out of the Bill for the simple reason that that provision already exists for

England and Wales in section 27 of the Education Act 1980, and for Scotland in section 2 of the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Act 1980. Some letters have been addressed to me expressing doubt about whether education has been dropped from the Bill. Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the undertaking that he has given will make use of the provisions of section 27 of the 1980 English legislation and of section 2 of the 1980 Scottish legislation. It would be to the advantage of the House if the Minister could clarify those two points.

Mr. Waddington: I can certainly help the hon. Gentleman. I am assured that, in relation to education in Scotland, the powers to make regulations under section 2 of the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Act 1980 are sufficient for that purpose.
I should have mentioned before, and perhaps by way of intervention I can advise the hon. Gentleman now, that the Department of the Environment consultations that were begun in December 1984 were addressed essentially to the general question of access to housing files, and to whether that should be by statutory or voluntary means. The consultations were not concerned with the detailed machinery with which the Department wishes to deal under the regulations.

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 4

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, page 14, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. Waddington: These three amendments are small technical amendments to the long title and financial provisions clause and are necessitated by the narrow scope of the Bill which now applies only to local authorities, imposes no burdens on industry and does not involve the incurring of expense by a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in title, line 3, leave out 'institutions and persons' and insert 'and'.

No. 4, in title, line 5, leave out from 'information' to end of line 6.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall confine my remarks to expressing my gratitude, particularly to my fellow sponsor the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris), who is unavoidably delayed on parliamentary business overseas. He has been a tower of strength to me and his enthusiasm and skill have been a considerable asset to all the Bill's sponsors in their work. I also thank the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), although he is not able to be present. His sage, philosophical advice has been of great


assistance to me throughout the passage of the Bill. However, I must repeat that we all wished for a somewhat different outcome, but we are thankful for what we have.
It is remarkable that there is now such a wide measure of cross-party support for further progress to be made in this area and I hope that the Government will note that. More than 140 voluntary organisations have helped us to scrutinise the detail of the original legislation which received a Second Reading. I hope that the Government will make use of some of that work in future scrutiny of the regulations that will be spawned by the Bill.
I particularly want to mention the Freedom of Information Campaign and to thank its director, Mr. Maurice Frankle, for his dedication, knowledge and help during the Bill's passage. Certainly, I would be pounds lighter from worry if he had not been ever present at my side. As this is the first time I have had the privilege to introduce legislation, it would be churlish not to thank the House authorities and the staff of the Public Bill Office, especially Mr. Douglas Millar, for their courtesy and their inexhaustible patience with requests made by me as father of this private Member's Bill.
Last but not least, the Minister has had a difficult role, acting as an agent for other Departments and carrying the can. He strikes a hard bargain, but I have always found him to be fair. We were worried earlier that we might sink into mutual recrimination, but I am pleased to report that we have not ever even approached that.
The issue of public access to personal information will rightly continue to generate public interest and debate. The Bill is a worthwhile legislative step. It establishes the principle of access to manual files, which is of importance in itself. It is a small step in what remains a long journey towards a freer, more open society in all aspects of life in Britain today.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I support the Bill with greater confidence than I did on Second Reading. Bills such as this tend to be supported only by those who see the matter in black and white. I have always had deep reservations about steaming ahead with wholesale open access to all personal files and I must ask the Minister to oversee the introduction of regulations carefully, particularly those involving exceptions.
The disparaging remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) about the difficulties facing UCCA suggested that he had little understanding of how difficult it is to make a full and frank personal assessment of an individual. Anybody who is trying to make an assessment or keep a record must strike a balance between acting on his own judgment based on evidence and merely producing a document that is full of bromides and inanities. The danger is that open access to personal files can result in the use of the telephone euphemisms or a failure to record sensitive information.
The sector about which I am most concerned is that of the social services with regard to child abuse, potential suicide attempts or any other manner of human behaviour where there seems to be a perfectly straightforward explanation, but the professional involved, on the basis of his or her experience, training and judgment, has reason to have grave reservations about the explanation that he or she has been given by the individual involved. Inevitably, in such cases confronting the individual with the professional's reservations is fraught with problems.
None of us would dispute that good practice means openness, but in some cases anybody involved in these decisions will experience difficulties and the thought that inevitably files will be opened and available could too easily lead to euphemisms and a failure to make proper records.
The modifications that have occurred are an improvement. However, I recognise that there is another side to the argument. In Committee examples were given of inaccurate information being incorporated in reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) spoke of 18 per cent. of medical records in Oxford being found to have some sort of omission or inaccuracy. In Leicester 1·5 per cent. of the medical records were found to have the sex of the individual wrongly recorded. We all know how easy it is for assertions to be made, for example, by school teachers in the preparation of court reports on the basis of hearsay and reputation. I am not arguing that this is a black and white matter, but it is right and proper to proceed with caution and carefully to monitor the progress.
Much has been made of the possible financial costs of the legislation : there are arguments which I find plausible that there has been an overstatement of the extent to which people will make use of these rights. I take the financial implications with a pinch of salt.
Another important point which has emerged, with regard to the subversion of freedom of information is the way in which some authorities have charged exorbitant prices for making information available. That seems a thoroughly unsatisfactory outcome, but it is what happens to over-idealistic legislation which has not been thought through as to the difficulties and detailed problems of implementing it. In all of my dealings with local authorities the constant refrain is, "Why does Parliament have so many good ideas that we must implement and carry out which require more training and manpower and changing practices?" Recently the police force has had to change its way of working with regard to the information that is at its disposal. I am concerned that if we had proceeded with this Bill on the original basis, the unintended consequences of the well-intentioned aims and aspirations of the sponsors of the Bill would have had effects about which I would have had great reservations.
In supporting the Bill on Third Reading arid congratulating all those who have worked so hard to negotiate it as far as this stage, I should like to reiterate once more that the changes and modifications that have occurred along the way are, in my view, improvements.

Mr. Corbett: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He knows well enough — he will probably share this view—that this is not the Bill that he, I or many other hon. Members wanted to see being debated and hopefully given a Third Reading and sent on to another place. However, that is the way of the world.
At one point during the Committee deliberations the Minister described himself as an errand boy. I think he put himself down too much because, although we are far apart on detail, his attitude has been to be as helpful as possible. I acknowledge that it was a difficult job collecting views from colleagues in a range of other Government Departments; none the less, we have a record of the assurances he has given the Committee and the House on


the regulations for the sectors which are the subject of this Bill. We have his word, which I am perfectly happy to accept, that best endeavours will be made to see that those assurances are carried out.
I pick no quarrel with the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) about the need to have sensible exceptions, particularly with respect to sensitive records, whether produced on pupils at school or in any other part of the education system. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that these records should not be frank and well based. This is what the argument is about. One of the aims of this Bill will be to persuade those who readily write these reports and who have to make judgments as part of that process to stop to think whether they can justify what they write. We do not want teachers who are tittle-tattles, because these records follow children the whole way through the educational process. I have seen some, not in the city of Birmingham but elsewhere, with no more than an initial. The teacher who put that piece of paper in the file may be untraceable because he has long since changed schools, or could have gone to a different part of the country. It is that to which we object.
We hope that the discretion that will be exercised within this Bill will lead to better record-keeping and to records that will assist. After all, the keeping of these records in these sectors and those in the Bill as first published is all about trying to make the syste more efficient. They are supposed to be there to help. They are not there to punish or to chastise.
Derogatory or critical remarks are bound to be made in some circumstances, whether about the behaviour of former council tenants over a property they had 10 years ago and left without paying the rent or about some suspicion that circumstances at home are affecting the learning capabilities or development of a child at school. I acknowledge absolutely that it is right that such information should be recorded, but we are saying that, when it is written down, the person or official doing so must justify to himself or herself, and if need be to the record holder or the record holder's parents, that this assessment or judgment is made in all honesty.
The very worst that will happen under this Bill is that someone will say that he wants to see his social services record. He will pay his 50p, or whatever it might be if there is to be a charge, and, accepting that those judgments in those difficult sectors have been made in a well-intentioned manner, the person concerned could say that the record is wrong and that a mistake has been made. One hopes that he would have a right to attach a comment on a judgment made about him.
I say again to the hon. Lady that, when these regulations are drawn up, proper care has to be taken—perhaps no more so than with social services. The Minister needs no lectures about this. I think that we have all had letters from an organisation called Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services. I will not read the whole of the letter from the general secretary but the organisation makes the strong point that it thinks that it is wrong to prevent prospective or existing adoptive and foster parents, or anyone who has been adopted or fostered, from having access to the files relating to them to ensure that those files do not contain any inaccuracies. It is critical in this whole adoption process that there is

absolute openness because mistakes can be made. However, every sensible step should be taken to ensure that mistakes are kept to a minimum.
The letter continues:
Many of the subsequent decisions about applicants are made by people other than those compiling the records on the strength of those records.
That is what happens with record keeping. There is a chain reaction, as records do not necessarily stay with the one person familiar with that file, but are passed from person to person within an organisation. In such matters as adoption and fostering, it is absolutely critical that the records are the best that can be maintained.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading. I hope that coming events may be delayed long enough to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book.

Mr. Waddington: I believe that we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) for her contribution to this debate. My hon. Friend has done a useful job in restoring the proper balance. Access to personal files is one of those matters that The Guardian, in its usual simplistic way, bills as one that the good support and the bad oppose. It is worth pointing out that it is not as simple as that.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the resource implications of access will be minor. Although that may be true with regard to this Bill, one should bear in mind that in Whitehall, as I mentioned in Committee, there are 12 million linear feet of records. The imagination boggles at the idea of people having access to all 12 million linear feet of those records. In the United States, the freedom to information legislation goes far wider than this Bill. That legislation was initially estimated to have cost the Federal Bureau of Investigation about £50,000, but it now costs the FBI £9·5 million a year. It also now employs no fewer than 300 additional staff. To give personal access to records is not as simple or as cheap as some people think.
I give my deep thanks to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for introducing the Bill and for being such a pleasant colleague in Committee. I give my thanks to those who have taken part in our interesting deliberations. I also express my thanks to the civil servants in the various Departments for all the work that they have done. Few people realise how much work goes into the servicing of private Members' Bills—I had no idea until this year. I first came to the House in 1968, but it is only this year that I have been an almost permanent occupier of this place on Fridays. I have not liked it very much, in spite of the good company. However, this year I have learnt how much work goes into each private Member's Bill in the Department concerned.
The Bill before us is a complicated Bill and involved the work of not just one Department but a number. I give my thanks to all those who played a part and, once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PRESCRIPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Social Security (Cold Climate Allowance) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): I was looking forward to listening, at least briefly, to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), but perhaps the warm weather on this beautiful spring day has caused the cold climate allowance to be far from his mind.
There are a number of reasons why I believe that a cold climate allowance is inappropriate and unjustified. First, it would breach the fundamental principle that income support and family credit, like the existing supplementary benefit and family income supplement schemes, are national benefits, uniform throughout the country.
Expenditure patterns vary throughout the country according to many factors, of which climate is only one. For example, transport costs vary between areas, as do other costs. If we concede that a special allowance should be made for one factor, it will be difficult to resist pressure for other variables to be taken into account. Even if it were possible to devise a scheme which accurately reflected all the differences in individual expenditure, which I doubt, it would run counter to the thrust of social security reform which is to make the main income-related schemes easier to understand and to administer.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I agree that regionally to vary national benefits would be a retrograde step. The Minister deals with the matter in a genteel fashion, but I am astonished that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is not in his place, because he has been running a campaign in Scotland on this issue. That he has not turned up for the Second Reading debate on his own Bill is a measure of his interest, which should be noted.
The Government have improved the severe weather supplement this year, but it is still not sensitive enough to meet the needs of people north of the border. I hope that,

although the Minister might reject the Bill's proposal, he will consider sympathetically proposals for a better scheme to be operated next year so that people north of the border and elsewhere do not suffer from hypothermia as they did this winter.

Mr. Lyell: I understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I take the view that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has decided that he is better employed elsewhere than at Westminster, notwithstanding the fact that his Bill is being debated. His absence will help to persuade many of his constituents that he is absolutely right. Before long, we shall learn that he is right.
I reject what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) says about the Government's cold weather scheme, with which I shall deal if time permits. There is no doubt that the extra severe weather scheme is a good scheme.

Mr. Kirkwood: I did not not say that the scheme was good, but that it was better.

Mr. Lyell: The scheme certainly is better. It relates to 63 areas of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is a perfectionist. I look forward to his party's proposals for a scheme which relates to 163 areas—or even to 1,063. I should like the hon. Gentleman to have more opportunity for consideration and to intervene on matters of substance rather than humour. The hon. Gentleman might speak later, but first I give him the opportunity to think through his views, and then to develop them.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East still seems reluctant to accept that climate is only one of the factors that affect individual fuel expenditure. Other factors are the size and standard of dwellings, the type of heating system, and the fuel used. Above all, Scotland is not the coldest part of the United Kingdom. Although on average people in Scotland spend more on fuel, their expenditure is lower than that of people in Wales and in parts of England. The figures will be of interest to the House. They show, for example, that while average weekly expenditure on fuel in Great Britain as a whole is £9·27 and, in Scotland, £9·50——

It being hall-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Private Members' Bills

FIXED PARLIAMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Second Reading what day?

Mr. Harry Cohen: With the authority of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 8 May.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS (PROHIBITION AT ELECTION TIMES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Cohen: With the authority of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 1 May.

PARENTAL LEAVE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [27 March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 8 May.

DRUG COMPANIES (ACCOUNTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 May.

WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT (PROTECTION OF BIRDS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 May.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1986 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Harry Greenway: With the permission of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 1 May.

LONDON GOVERNMENT AND OTHER COUNCILS (ANNUAL ELECTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Cohen: With the authority of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 1 May.

North Norway Fishery

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. James Wallace: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I raise the subject of the licensing arrangements for the north Norway cod fishery to highlight the plight of my constituent, Mr. Russell Smith, who is the skipper of the fishing vessel Vega, which has not been granted a licence for that fishery.
The Minister and his Department have received many representations on this subject from hon. Members, and from the industry, locally and nationally. The reason for the volume of those representations and for my pursuing the matter on an Adjournment debate is that the refusal to grant a licence to the Vega for that fishery has been widely seen as unjust and likely to cause further undue hardship to its skipper and crew. It is often inevitable when licences are to be granted that there will be disappointments, but in this case a combination of circumstances has put Mr. Smith in a highly unusual position. That is why, after meetings and many representations, I want to make one further plea to the Minister to reconsider his decision.
First, I wish to discuss the purchase of the vessel. The Vega was formerly known as the Arctic Reiver, and was purchased from a company based on Humberside on 30 June 1986. An application for all external water licences went to the local fisheries office in Lerwick in May and was passed on to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland through the Edinburgh office on 29 May 1986. I am advised in a letter of 20 May from the agents acting for Mr. Smith that it was said that they had a client who intended to acquire a vessel and that they were inquiring what the position would be about external water licences. I have been advised and informed by the agents acting for Mr. Smith and by Mr. Smith himself that subsequent conversations between the agents and the Department's officials were of a tenor that did not lead them to believe that licences would not be issued. More specifically, it was indicated that the Arctic Reiver would be treated in the same way as its sister vessel, the Arctic Challenger. The Arctic Reiver became the Vega and it has not been treated in the same way as the Arctic Challenger because it does not have a licence whereas its sister ship has.
I know and appreciate that the Minister and his office have never accepted that a guarantee was given. I accept that no letter was written in which there was a cast-iron guarantee. However, in the light of the conversations that took place with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr. Smith went ahead and made a substantial capital investment in purchasing the vessel and investing a sizeable sum to fit out the boat, to renew certain equipment and to make it capable of fishing in north Norwegian waters. It is a relevant fact that Mr. Smith, on the strength of the conversations with the Department, went ahead with the investment.
Secondly, I believe that the Vega is unique in being the only vessel of its type which has not been awarded a licence. The allocation was decided in England through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and in Scotland licences were granted by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to the Aberdeen vessels which fished in north Norwegian waters last year. I am informed that 15 out of 16 comparable stern trawlers have been


given licences and that it is only the Vega which has been excluded. The exclusion is extraordinary because of all the vessels concerned it is the one that is geographically most conveniently suited for fishing in Norwegian waters.
The Minister has argued that there were other disappointed applicants, some of whom were perceived by him and his officials to be capable of fishing in the area. Many of the other applicants came from the traditional inshore white fish fleet and there is a question mark, at the very least, over whether they could have fished as far north as the area that is presently under discussion. Many of them were also pelagic vessels, and this year their fishing opportunities have increased elsewhere. It is fair to record also that, according to my information, there would be no objection in Shetland, at any rate to the knowledge of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, from among the other unsuccessful applicants if the Vega were to be granted a licence.
The claim has been made by Ministry officials that there are four English-based stern trawlers capable of fishing in north Norwegian waters which have not been granted licences. A further vessel, the Margaret Jane, has fished in north Norwegian waters. It did so from 1983 to 1985, but it has been refused a licence for this year.
Following the undertaking of some research, it is my information that of the vessels that have been named as being comparable to the Vega, the Boltby Queen is a vessel that can hold only about 1,000 boxes of fish in a relatively small hold. It is accepted that it is a large stern trawler, but it is submitted that it is not suitable for making lengthy trips to north Norwegian waters because of the limited size of its hold.
I understand that the St. Patrick is being purchased by the Marr group and has now been renamed the Gavina. It has received an external waters licence for fishing off north Norway. The Arcomine is understood to be a 95 ft beam trawler currently based in Brixham. Consequently, the vessel is much more suited to fishing in southern and central North sea waters and would be totally unsuited to fishing the distant waters of north Norway.
The case of the Portelois may be comparable. It is accepted that it could possibly be capable of fishing off north Norway. It has not received a licence. There was a question about whether it was a member of the main English Producer Organisation, which I understand was the organisation through which English licences were allocated. The Margaret Jane, which, it is suggested, fished from 1983 to 1985, no longer has a licence. It is a 65 ft Scarborough-based inshore vessel. There is some doubt about whether a vessel of that capability and size managed to fish in north Norway during the years in question.
Those vessels were alleged not to have received a licence. Of greater importance, is there comparability between the Vega and its sister ship, the Arctic Challenger? As I stated earlier, assurances were certainly given that there would be comparable treatment. That has not happened. The Arctic Challenger has received a licence. It is also fair to point out that, even if the Vega were to be included in a Scottish allocation and given the average allocation which would apply, it would be less than what the Arctic Challenger is receiving as its slice of the much larger English quota.
In many respects, the matter goes back to what have been said to be historical rights. The English quota is considerably larger —about three times larger—than the Scottish quota. That is based on historical preference. In

this case, the historical issue is in its proper sense. Over many years, particularly through the 1970s, the fish-producing organisation in Humberside managed an overwhelming part of the north Norwegian cod quota.
It is said that one of the reasons for the Vega not receiving a licence is that it has no record of fishing in north Norway waters. The record of the Aberdeen vessels that have been awarded licences amounts to only one year. Compared with the traditions on Humberside, that can scarcely be said to be historic. The Arctic Challenger, the sister ship, has had a fishing record that is similar to that of the Vega. Prior to this year. it has never fished in north Norway waters. It stayed on Humberside, and the Vega went to Shetland. The Arctic Challenger received a licence, but the Vega did not. Again, it would appear that historic rights have been used in different ways on different occasions.
It is of particular concern that such historical rights might, in a sense, be frozen. I should be grateful if the Minister will state whether, if a vessel has not received a licence this year, the fact that it has not managed to build up any historical rights will he used against it in any future year.
I draw the Minister's attention to the circumstances of an English vessel, the MV Arctic Ranger. I am informed that that vessel is substantially Norwegian owned, but it has a United Kingdom external waters licence. Ironically enough, the licence came from the vessel that my constituent, Mr. Smith, sold before buying the Vega. His personal external water licence was transferred. Whereas the wholly United Kingdom-owned Vega has not been granted a licence for north Norwegian waters, a Norwegian-owned vessel has obtained one. It will he interesting to hear how that anomaly can possibly be justified.
I have referred to circumstances that I believe amount to injustice. It is also important to point out that they will cause hardship, not least to Mr. Smith and his crew. Mr. Smith has supplied the Minister with correspondence containing detailed figures to show how the lack of such a fishing opportunity in north Norway waters will imperil the viability of his boat. His returns from fishing North sea haddock and North sea cod will not only fail to provide a reasonable level of income for his 15-man crew but will not generate sufficient income to meet loan repayments, interest charges, maintenance and every-day overhead costs. The north Norway cod fishery would make all the difference to the viability of the boat.
Even if the Minister felt that in order to be fair to the Aberdeen vessels that have received an allocation that allocation should be no less than last year, the balance left in the Scottish quota would make a significant difference to Mr. Smith's fishing enterprise. Unless prospects improve, Mr. Smith feels that he may well be forced to sell the vessel. Perhaps the Minister could tell us about the prospects for 1988 and what the size of the quota is likely to be for Scottish vessels. Perhaps he can also say how the concept of historic rights will be applied.
It would be useful if the Minister could say something about other possible opportunities, not least for fishing off Spitzbergen, because I understand that the European Commission has now produced draft proposals for an allocation of the United Kingdom quota for the Spitzbergen fishery. The Minister might be able to say how and when he expects that to be allocated. He might also say something about opportunities in the Faroese quota.
I appreciate that in the past the Minister has given this matter considerable and detailed attention. I am grateful to him for meeting me to discuss it. In the light of those discussions he was quite prepared to think again about the matter but I respectfully suggest to him, having thought about it again, that he has come to the wrong conclusion again. Some of the reasons given, not least the comparison with other vessels, show a failure to appreciate the lack of comparability, despite indications to the contrary, about the sister ship the Arctic Challenger. The wrong conclusion was reached.
In correspondence with the Minister, Mr. Smith has gone as far as to point out that his life's work as a fisherman is invested in this boat and to be forced to try to sell it would cut very deep. I hope that in response to the debate the Minister will be able to say something positive, preferably about this year's licensing. Failing that, perhaps he can say something about future licences and alternative prospects for 1987. Even if in the light of the information given today about the other vessels he wishes to reconsider again and not give an immediate response, that would certainly be preferable to an outright refusal. A wholly negative response would be a considerable disappointment to many people.
If the Vega is allowed to fish in the north Norwegian waters, it will land valuable supplies of fish at Shetland and help the community in general through support for the processing industry. It will be a great disappointment to many people and, above all, to the skipper and crew if the Minister gives a negative response because it is their livelihoods that are at stake.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has put the case for his constituent, Mr. Smith, very clearly. The matter of the fishing licence for the north Norway fishery is obviously of great concern to him and, as the hon. Gentleman said, he and I have exchanged correspondence on this matter and also met to discuss it.
This debate has a little bit to do with the pressure that the hon. Gentleman has put on, but it also has a little to do with the Orkney and Shetland Movement's prospective candidate in the northern isles. I note with interest that he is to receive the backing of the Scottish National party, conditional on guarantees of his support in pressing the separatist cause. One of the policies of the Orkney and Shetland Movement is local control over fishing. Clearly the SNP must be content to support that happening in the waters around the northern isles. Such local control would mean that fishermen elsewhere in Scotland may be excluded.
I wonder if the Scottish National party in the homeland of Scottish fishing in Banff and Buchan and Moray and East Angus has explained to the fishermen in Arbroath, Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Lossiemouth that they are in bed, so to speak, with a partner who might exclude these fishermen from these important waters. I wager that the SNP has not explained that, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will ensure that their fishing constituents are aware of the likely impact on their fishing opportunities of this odd alliance between the SNP and the Orkney and Shetland Movement.
May I give a little of the background to the question of north Norwegian waters and the reasons for the current management and licensing measures in force in that area. The House knows that the European Community has fishing agreements with a number of third countries, which essentially provide for the exchange of fishing opportunities in each other's zones. Of all the fisheries agreements, the one negotiated annually with Norway is the most important from our point of view. This is because many of the important stocks of the North sea are managed jointly, and the two parties therefore agree on the annual total allowable catch for these stocks and the proportion of each stock which is due to each party.
Since the needs of the fishing fleets of the Community and Norway are different, a series of transfers between the two parties are then agreed. These exchanges cover both joint stocks and those which are managed exclusively by one party. The agreement also provides for access by each party's fishing vessels to the waters of the other party. Norway's interest lies mainly in the pelagic and industrial species in the North sea and off the west coast of Scotland, while the Community seeks additional white fish opportunities in the Norwegian sector of the North sea and in northern Norwegian waters. It is these latter opportunities which have been of particular interest to the owners of the Vega.
For some years before 1986, fishing in the north Norwegian grounds was undertaken exclusively by English-based vessels, under management arrangements made by the Humberside-based Fish Producers Organisation. When, last year, the five Aberdeen stern trawlers sought access to these waters, officials of the Fisheries Departments reached what I believe was a very fair agreement on the allocation of the United Kingdom's cod quota between the Scottish and English vessels. In effect, the FPO vessels were allowed a 75 per cent. share of the cod quota, while the remaining 25 per cent. share was allocated to the Aberdeen vessels. The actual figures were 5,520 metric tonnes and 1,840 tonnes respectively. I should perhaps explain that, although there are other stocks available to the United Kingdom in these northern Norwegian waters, these species are taken primarily as by-catches in the cod fishery. It is the cod stock which makes the long haul to these grounds viable for individual vessels.
The interest shown by the Aberdeen vessels was unexpected and, bearing in mind the fact that the Humberside FPO had a fisheries management plan geared to ensure that their vessels fully utilised the United Kingdom's north Norway cod quota in 1986, some form of management and licensing control was clearly necessary. Fishing in the area was taking place, however, before final agreement on the division of the cod quota was reached and, in the event, the Aberdeen vessels had almost taken the entire 25 per cent. Scottish share when the allocations were announced. There was no opportunity, therefore, to accommodate additional requests for licenses for the north Norway fishery which were received during 1986.
The agreement reached by my officials and those from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was considered to be an ad hoc one. As is often the case with the fishing industry an individual fish stock can move rapidly from a position where our quotas are under-utilised to one where the quotas may be fully taken during the year. This reflects the entrepreneurial spirit of the fishing industry. In any event, the officials of both


Departments made it clear to relevant industry organisations that the licensing arrangements for all the distant water fisheries would be reviewed for 1987.
An important factor in these considerations was, of course, the actual level of opportunities available to the United Kingdom fleet for 1987. In the case of the north Norwegian fishery, the principal point of interest was an increase in the cod quota from 7,360 to 9,370 tonnes. What was never in dispute was the need for continued licensing and management controls. The improvement in catch rates in the north Norway fishery in 1986; the regrettable decline in catching opportunities in 1987 for some of the main North sea white fish stocks, particularly cod and haddock; and the need to allocate fishing opportunities so that the fishery was economically viable for the participating vessels—all militated against a free-for-all fishery.
The fear that increased effort in the north Norwegian cod fishery would lead to the United Kingdom quota being taken early in the year meant that agreement on a distribution of the quota and on the appropriate management arrangements was essential; and this agreement has clearly stimulated a major debate about the respective merits of the various claims for renewed access or new access to the fishery. There can be no doubt that the north Norway fishery has in recent years been fished almost exclusively by English-based vessels. Conversely, it is also a fact that until last year the quotas available to United Kingdom vessels in north Norway waters had been under-utilised and the Aberdeen-based vessels had every right to look to these waters for additional catching opportunities, as they did last year. In all the circumstances, it was finally agreed that the United Kingdom cod quota for 1987 should be split on the basis of 7,270 tonnes for FPO vessels and 2,100 tonnes for Scottish-based vessels. Again, I believe that this was a fair and equitable split of the cod quota.
That brings me to the management and licensing arrangements in force for this year in Scotland. As hon. Members will have noted from the figures I have given, the Scottish share of the cod quota was increased from 1,840 tonnes to 2,100 tonnes. When I came to consider the most appropriate way to manage the Scottish allocation, there were pertinent factors to take into account. They included the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland had received at tha time more than 30 applications from vessel owners interested in fishing in north Norway; the share of the cod quota available to Scottish vessels; and, not least, the fact that the Aberdeen-based vessels had taken the initiative in seeking authority to fish in north Norway last year and had invested in appropriate fishing gear to enable them to do so. In all the circumstances, I concluded that there was insufficient scope to increase the number of vessels participating in the fishery.
Responsibility for the management measure relevant to the English industry rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I understand, however, that he has deemed it appropriate to continue with the arrangements which have been in force for the past few years—the delegation of management of the English quota to the Fish Producers Organisation.
Much of the argument which is based on the fact the Vega came from England—if if she had stayed there, as her sister ship did, she might have got part of the English

quota—is irrelevant. The way in which we operate the system is to divide the total United Kingdom quota into an English quota and a Scottish quota. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State deals with his quota in his way and I deal with mine in my way. We have a well-tried system to look after our fisheries. He looks after his and I look after mine, which is sensible.
Everyone will understand that my right hon. Friend wishes to increase the opportunities for Humberside, which is why the Fish Producers Organisation was given the quota. He is not alone in that. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a speech made on Humberside by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which is reported in Fishing News on 27 March. He said:
Nowhere is the need for stability more keenly needed than here in Humberside. The catching sector has taken cruel punishment for international changes that were beyond its control.''
He said that the Humber was the right place to exploit recovering North sea stock.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should not split the stocks between Scotland and England, giving roughly three quarters to Humberside boats and roughly one quarter to Scottish boats, based on the historic interests of our fishermen. Some may say that all the fisheries should come under the control of one United Kingdom Department and that there should be no sharing out, first between Scotland and England and then among the individual fisheries in those countries. I do not know how many friends such a proposal would attract in the Scottish fishing industry, but the alliance is proposing exactly that, if it ever establishes a Scottish Assembly.
The Second report of the SDP-Liberal alliance joint commission on constitutional reform says that the post of Secretary of State for Scotland will disappear,
since all of the functions of Government which can be sensibly administered separately for Scotland will come under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
It says that the increasing impact of European Community rules will militate against fragmenting consideration of industrial and economic problems, and continues:
This applies with even greater force to agriculture and fisheries and it rules out the complete devolution of these functions to a Scottish Parliament.''
The office of Secretary of State would, of course, be abolished and I should not have the privilege of addressing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My Department would disappear and be taken into an enlarged MAFF. I do not know whether the Scottish agriculture and fishery industries have had that explained to them. I suspect that they have not. Indeed, I saw a recent publication from the alliance telling Scottish farmers that Scottish agriculture would be dealt with in Edinburgh. Clearly, the candidate in question was ignorant of the alliance parties' report.

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I have only two minutes left and I have a number of points to deal with, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wallace: It would have been better if the Minister had come to those points earlier, rather than trying to make political capital. The document said that these matters would not be "completely devolved". That leaves considerable room for the devolution of agriculture and fisheries matters, and, in the case of fisheries, for regional management.

Mr. MacKay: We know now: the alliance parties change things as they go along, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said last night in the agriculture debate.
I did not have enough fish in hand to divide them six ways instead of five. If I had divided them six ways by including the Vega and therefore excluded all other applicants, the fish received by the Aberdeen vessels would have been less than would have been received last year, and that would have been unfair.
The Council of Fisheries Ministers has agreed on a Community quota for the Svalbard cod stock and Ministers are now considering how to divide that up. I reaffirm the decision that I gave the hon. Gentleman when we met — that there are not sufficient and compelling reasons to alter the management and licensing arrangements for this year's north Norway fishery, but the Vega will be taken into account when next year's arrangements for fishing in northern Norway are considered. What

happens this year will not be set in concrete. We shall consider next year's arrangements and the Vega at the appropriate time.
On a slightly better note, a recent article in the Shetland Times states that the MV Vega has earned £760,000 in the seven months following its first landings at the end of July last year. Another edition of the Shetland Times—I am a devoted reader, as will have become clear to the hon. Gentleman — carried another article on 17 April reporting that Mr. Smith recently broke the Shetland record for a single landing of monkfish, which grossed £24,140. His total catch from the same trip was valued at £41,780. Mr. Smith's skill as a fisherman is clearly shown by those figures and I hope that the assurances that I have given that he will be considered when we consider the allocation of next year's fishing will come as an encouragement to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.